SWIMMABLE CITIES:
LessonsforBaltimorefromfivecitiesthathave
cleaneduptheirrivers,lakes,andestuaries
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
Introduction................................................................................................ 3
2.
Case Study Summary.................................................................................. 5
a. Map: Case study locations...................................................................... 5
b. Chart: Case study comparisons.............................................................. 6
c. Table: Key factors in success................................................................... 7
3.
The Path to a Swimmable Harbor: Lessons for Baltimore City................... 9
4.
Case Study: Upper Chattahoochee River, Atlanta, GA.............................. 15
5.
Case Study: Charles River, Boston, MA..................................................... 23
6.
Case Study: Santa Monica Bay, Los Angeles, CA....................................... 31
7.
Case Study: Lake Pontchartrain, New Orleans, LA.................................... 40
8.
Case Study: Lafayette River, Norfolk, VA................................................... 50
INTRODUCTION
As a city whose sewer system is more than 100 years old in places, Baltimore has been plagued
by problems with raw sewage entering local waterways and ultimately flowing into the Baltimore
Harbor. Wet weather overflows are the most commonly cited cause of sewage in Baltimore
waterways. These occur when cracks in the City’s aging sewer pipes allow rainwater to enter the
sewer system, reducing its capacity to carry sewage. The resulting overflows discharge untreated
sewage from the municipal sanitary sewer system out of manholes and into streets and streams. However, sewage also enters local waterways during dry weather for a variety of reasons. Sewer
lines may become blocked by grease or tree roots, private properties may have sewer lines
that are illegally connected to the storm drain system, or old broken pipes may continually leak
sewage into groundwater and storm drain pipes. Cumulatively, these issues likely contribute
more sewage to Baltimore waterways than overflows that occur during wet weather.
Sewer overflow in Baltimore (Photo source: Blue Water Baltimore)
Like many older urban areas, Baltimore City is under a legal mandate from EPA, known as a
consent decree, to eliminate these sources of sewage. Baltimore’s consent decree has been in
place since 2002 and required the elimination of all overflows by January 1, 2016. Over the past
14 years, the Baltimore City Department of Public Works has been implementing a $1.1 billion
3
plan to repair the City’s aging sewage system. During that time, the Department of Public Works
undertook an extensive study of the sewer system, which included examining every major pipe
using closed circuit TV. Thirty-one consent decree projects have been completed including 163
miles of sewer rehabilitation and the elimination of 60 (out of 62) sewer overflow structures that
released wastewater into city streams. Baltimore is currently in negotiations with EPA and State
agencies for an amendment to the consent decree that would grant an extension to complete
the work.
In December 2015, the Environmental Integrity Project issued a report titled “Stopping the Flood
Beneath Baltimore’s Streets” that detailed the City’s failure to comply with the consent decree.
The report found that Baltimore releases millions of gallons of sewage into its waterways each
year through the two remaining sewer overflows structures in order to prevent sewage from
backing up into the basements of property owners. The report raised important questions
regarding transparency, public notification, and the lack of overall progress in fixing the City’s
sewer overflow problem.
In recent years the Baltimore City Department of Public Works has implemented some important
course corrections, which will help ensure greater progress in the years ahead. The City is
committed to repairing by 2020 a century-old, 12-foot diameter sewage pipe that feeds into
the City’s Back River Wastewater Treatment Plant, even though the repair was not required by
the consent decree. A hydraulic restriction in this pipe routinely causes sewage to back up for
10 miles beneath the City and is the source of the overflows coming from the two remaining
open sewer overflow structures along the Jones Falls. Also, in 2011 the Department of Public
Works adopted what is known as an Integrated Planning Framework. The Integrated Planning
Framework is a comprehensive approach, endorsed by the EPA, in which the City considers the
environmental, social, economic, and efficiency benefits of potential remediation projects and
then prioritizes those projects with the greatest cumulative impacts. This approach should allow
Baltimore to implement high-impact projects while keeping spending in a range that is affordable
for its citizens. Baltimore is far from the only city spending considerable time and resources on this issue, and
yet some U.S. cities have seen significant water quality improvements while Baltimore has not. In fact, the 2014 Healthy Harbor Report Card gave the Harbor an “F” grade for overall water
quality. The Waterfront Partnership of Baltimore, with funding from the Abell Foundation, hired
the Center for Watershed Protection to produce this technical report of case studies on sewage
cleanup efforts in five cities similar to Baltimore from around the country. These case studies
provide a detailed look at what made these cities successful and what lessons and strategies
could be applied to Baltimore to ensure that the path to a swimmable and fishable Harbor is
timely, affordable, and supported by a broad base of champions for clean and healthy waterways.
4
CASE STUDY SUMMARY
This report presents five case studies of communities who have had success in reducing sewage
flows to their waterways and, in some cases, documented water quality improvements that
allowed these waters to be used for recreation once again. The case studies include the Upper
Chattahoochee River (Atlanta, GA), the Charles River (Boston, MA), Santa Monica Bay (Los Angeles,
CA), Lake Pontchartrain (New Orleans, LA), and the Lafayette River (Norfolk, VA). While there
are some notable differences between Baltimore and the case study cities, they were chosen
because they are generally comparable to Baltimore and the sewage pollution in the Baltimore
Harbor. The matrix below compares each city to Baltimore in terms of demographics, sewage
problems, sewage solutions, and indicators of improvement. It is followed by a table outlining
key factors in each city’s success.
Case study locations
5
6
*Cleanup costs should be considered approximate estimates only. Cleanups include efforts by numerous partners over long periods of time and costs are not consistently tracked by all cities.
*
WATERBODY
Upper Chattahoochee
River:
Atlanta, GA
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
Political leadership–MayorShirleyFranklinenthusiasticallyembracedthe
title of “sewer mayor” and made fixing the City’s sewer system a priority.
Therefore,citizensknewtheissueandsupportedincreasesinwaterfeesand
salestaxtofundrepairs.
Government/NGO partnerships–VolunteerswiththeChattahoocheeRiverkeeperhelpthecitymonitortheriverandalerttheproperorganizationwhen
problemsareidentified.TheRiverkeeper’sNeighborhoodWaterWatchprogram uses volunteers to conduct bacteria sampling that helps to pinpoint
wheresewageleaksarepresent.
Consent decree tied to water quality improvement–TheCity’sconsentdecreerequiredwaterqualitymonitoringtodemonstratethatprojectswere
successful.TheCitynowoperatesalong-termmonitoringprogramtotrack
waterqualityimprovements,withsupportfromUSGSandtheChattahoocheeRiverkeeper
Charles River:
Boston, MA
Participation and support from state and federal government–EPA’sNew
EnglandheadquartersarelocatedinBoston.In1995EPAAdministratorJohn
P.DeVillarsdevelopedtheCleanCharlesInitiativeandsetagoalofaswimmableCharlesRiverby2005.Thishighlypublicizedinitiativeusesanannual
ReportCardtoevaluateprogresstowardsthegoal.
Government/NGO partnerships–TheEPAprovidedfundingfortheClean
CharlesInitiativeandawarded$400,000totheCharlesRiverWatershedAssociationformonitoringandthedevelopmentofapublicwarningsystem.
The volunteer monitoring program, with over 80 volunteers, monitors 35
siteseverymonthandsendsdatatoEPAtoanalyzeandproducetheannual
ReportCard.
Address both wet and dry weather sources of sewage–Twoseparateconsentdecreesdealtwithsewagedischarges.Theillicitdischargeconsentdecreerequiredsurveysofalloutfallsduringbothwetanddryweather.Italso
setatimeframeof60daystofixsewageleaks,providinganothermechanism
forenforcement.TheCityhaseliminatedmorethan48,000gallonsperday
ofsewage-contaminatedstormwaterintheLowerCharlessince2004.
Santa Monica
Bay:
Los Angeles, CA
Development of new technologies –Low-flowdiversionstructuressendwater from the City’s storm drain system into a separate sewage system for
treatmentduringdryweather.
7
WATERBODY
Santa Monica
Bay:
Los Angeles, CA
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
Government/NGO partnerships – Environmental groups and City planning
staffworkedtocollaborativelyplansewerandstormwatersystemstomeet
regulatoryrequirements.ThispartnershipdrovetheCitytoputa$500millionbondmeasuretoapublicvoteforwaterqualityimprovementprojects.
Theenvironmentalorganizationsdevelopedcampaignstopromotethebond
measureanditpassedwith2/3rdofthegeneralvote.
Consent decree tied to water quality improvement–TheCity’sconsentdecree required water quality monitoring to demonstrate that projects were
successful.Inaddition,developmentofbacteriaregulationsreliedoninnovativebacteriasourcetrackingmethods,whichdeterminedthatstormdrains
weretheprimarysourceofhumansewage.
Address both wet and dry weather sources of sewage–TheCityhasadopted
anaggressivefats,oilsandgreaseprogramthathasgreatlyreducedthenumberofsewageoverflowsrelatedtogreaseclogsinthesewerlines.
Lake
Pontchartrain:
New Orleans,
LA
Consent decree tied to water quality improvement–TheCity’sconsentdecreerequiredquarterlystormeventwaterqualitymonitoringforindicatorsof
sewagebeforeandafterprojectimplementationtodemonstratethatprojects
weresuccessful.Asubsequentmodificationoftheconsentdecreelanguage
wasaddedtoensureconsistencywithotherwaterquality-basedregulatory
requirements.Thisprovidedadditionallinesofenforcementtoensurethat
waterqualitygoalsweremet.
Participation and support from state and federal government – The Lake
PontchartrainBasinFoundationisprimarilysupportedbyfundsfromEPAand
theLouisianaDepartmentofEnvironmentalQuality.Thisorganizationconductsmonitoring,educationandrestorationactivities.
Lafayette River:
Norfolk, VA
Government/NGO partnerships–Ratherthantakinglegalaction,theElizabethRiverProjectmetwithpartnersandaskedforhelp.Inreturn,theCity
and Hampton Roads Sanitation District provided assistance with tracking
downsourcesofsewageevenwhenitwasnotrequired.
Address both wet and dry weather sources of sewage–TheCity’sprograms
haveaddressedallmajorsourcesandincludeupgradestomarinapumpout
systemsandafreeboatersewagepumpoutprogramduringpeakboatingseason.Theyhavealsoestablishedastate-of-the-artregionalprogramthatreducesseweroverflowsrelatedtoclogsfromfats,oilsandgreaseinthesewer
lines.
8
THE PATH TO A SWIMMABLE HARBOR:
LESSONS FOR BALTIMORE CITY
Swimming in water contaminated with sewage comes with serious human health risks from
contact with disease-causing water-borne pathogens. These risks can range in severity from
intestinal discomfort to serious infections and disease. Reducing the amount of sewage released
into City waterways needs to be a priority for Baltimore; however, the solutions require time and
resources that are often in short supply in a City with competing demands on both. These case
studies uncover ways that cities have found to harness additional resources and reveal important
regulatory requirements that have helped them to stay focused on fixing their sewage problems.
In general, the causes of sewage pollution and the approaches to fixing the problems are similar
in Baltimore compared to the case study communities. Baltimore’s projected costs of the consent
decree at $1.1 billion are in line with that of the profiled communities (as well as the national
average of $709 million). Baltimore’s original consent decree timeframe of 14 years is the most
aggressive of all the case study cities and, even if extended by a decade, would still be comparable
to Atlanta and New Orleans. In each city, sewer fee increases were the primary source of funding
for sewer rehabilitation projects. In Los Angeles and Atlanta, citizens voted for a bond measure
and sales tax increase to pay for projects, while New Orleans and Boston received federal funding
and also utilized state loans. Baltimore has undertaken many of the same activities used to clean up waters in the case study
communities. This includes making a comprehensive evaluation of the sewer system using
closed circuit TV to evaluate conditions, development of a sewer rehabilitation program and
implementation of numerous projects to eliminate wet weather sewer overflows, as well as
improvements to operation and maintenance activities to reduce sewer overflows caused by
clogs from fats, oils, and grease. The City has embraced the fishable and swimmable goal for
the Harbor, which is being championed by local partners such as the Waterfront Partnership of
Baltimore and Blue Water Baltimore, who produce an annual water quality report card for the
Harbor. The City also coordinates with Baltimore County and Blue Water Baltimore on a regional
water quality monitoring effort.
Despite the similarities between Baltimore and the profiled communities, there are some key
elements of the cleanup efforts in the case studies that are missing in Baltimore. These key
elements are presented below with a discussion of how they can be transferred to Baltimore.
1. ADDRESS BOTH WET AND DRY WEATHER SEWAGE FLOWS
Each of the cities profiled tackled their sewage problems by addressing all sewage sources, often
through multiple initiatives led by various partners. Some had consent decrees that explicitly
called for fixing both dry and wet weather sewer overflows (e.g., Norfolk), while others had
9
entirely separate regulatory drivers for each source (e.g., Boston). Generally, the path was to
fix the most obvious sewage problems first and then use water quality monitoring to evaluate
progress. This monitoring was key to prioritize further improvements, for example in Boston it
highlighted that even though the wet weather overflows had been tackled, there was still a major
problem with sewage flows in dry weather. Using this process, most of the cleanup efforts first
addressed wastewater treatment plant upgrades and sewer overflows and then illicit discharges
from leaks and illegal connections.
Baltimore’s consent decree was designed to primarily address wet weather overflows and
maintenance-related dry weather overflows (e.g., from clogs in the system). However, the City
does not collect water quality data to gauge the effectiveness of completed consent decree
projects. Therefore, consent decree projects may address wet weather overflows, which typically
have a short lived effect on sewage levels in the receiving waters, while dry weather overflows
(from leaks or illegal connections) continue unabated. Monitoring by Blue Water Baltimore shows that locations along both the Jones Falls and Gwynns
Falls streams have exceedingly high levels of fecal bacteria at all times, regardless of precipitation. Cumulatively, these dry weather flows may actually exceed those from wet weather, including
the flows from the City’s two remaining overflows structures. These dry weather discharges into
the storm sewer system are discovered by storm drain outfall monitoring and, though Baltimore
has a monitoring network to identify these sources, City records confirm that there has been
limited success in tracking down and fixing the sources of these flows. For example, according to
the Department of Public Works’ quarterly report to EPA ending September 30, 2015, 7 out of 18
dry weather flows are still active after having been discovered more than 3 years ago.
An important aspect of Baltimore’s story is that the City has an existing program under their
municipal stormwater permit to find and fix illicit discharges of sewage to the storm sewer
system, which is entirely separate from the consent decree. Tracking and elimination of these dry
weather discharges is a difficult process that is hampered by the shared responsibility requiring
the coordination of four different divisions across two departments. While the stormwater permit
and consent decree programs are becoming better integrated, neither has a process that weighs
the cost-effectiveness of eliminating both wet and dry weather sources to meet water quality
goals.
Baltimore’s new Integrated Planning Framework is ideal for addressing these concerns because
it will optimize the City’s investments in water, sewer, and stormwater infrastructure to best
serve its customers and the environment. In theory, this can help the City to prioritize projects
that provide the greatest impact, regardless of whether the problems occur during wet or dry
weather. However, the information available on the City’s framework does not mention dry
weather sewage discharges as one of the project types on which cost-effectiveness is considered
as a decision-making factor. To effectively address both wet and dry weather sources of sewage,
this framework must incorporate elimination of illicit discharges and other dry weather sewage
flows as one of the management alternatives. 10
2. MEASURE EFFECTIVENESS USING WATER QUALITY ENDPOINTS
Most of the case study communities were required to conduct water quality monitoring to verify
improvements as a result of sewer rehabilitation projects. In all cases, the cities worked with
local partners such as a watershed group to conduct the monitoring. These non-governmental
organizations not only assist the cities with compliance, they also serve as watchdogs and
communicate results to the public through weekly data reports, annual Report Cards or State of
the River reports, which are important tools for increasing the public’s awareness of the problem
and support for restoration efforts.
Baltimore City’s consent decree program has no defined water quality endpoints and water
quality monitoring is not required to verify that the projects have actually improved the receiving
water quality. The program instead focuses on implementation of projects as the endpoints and
as such, lacks an element of accountability. While the City does use water quality monitoring
to help track down sources of illicit discharges, and to determine that unpermitted discharges
have been repaired, it is not a major part of the consent decree effort. Baltimore’s Integrated
Planning Framework should include bacteria standards as endpoints so that, in addition to using
monitoring for tracking and identifying problems, it can also be used to measure progress.
The Waterfront Partnership’s Healthy Harbor initiative works to promote cleaning up the streams
and Harbor of Baltimore through an annual report card, neighborhood cleanups, and innovative
projects at the Inner Harbor. However, publicity for similar campaigns in the case study cities
appear to be much more widespread and visible. A shift towards measuring the progress of the
consent decree using water quality would be complemented by expanding these efforts to have
a broader reach and impact.
3. PROVIDE MULTIPLE LINES OF ENFORCEMENT
Each case study city is/was under consent decree or a similar type of legal mandate to eliminate
sewer overflows. However, not all sewer overflow consent decrees are the same. Our success
stories showed consent decrees that contained language tying the required actions to other
regulations, such as bacteria TMDLs and municipal stormwater permits. This provided multiple
lines of enforcement and therefore more accountability, helping to ensure the desired end
results. Most of the consent decrees required some form of water quality monitoring to verify
water quality improvements. They also incorporated specific timeframes for all actions, including
reporting and fixing illicit discharges. For example, Boston’s consent decree for illicit discharges
requires all leaks be fixed within 60 days. It also appears that the EPA regional office and/or State
agencies responsible for enforcement in each community provided adequate oversight, levying
fines for noncompliance when necessary.
In Baltimore enforcement has been lacking on the dry weather sewer overflow problems, in part
because there are no timeframes associated with fixing them. This is evidenced by reviewing the
City’s quarterly consent decree reports to EPA, which show that many of the discharges have been
11
ongoing for months or even years. There are also no provisions in the consent decree for water
quality monitoring (unless an overflow is reported) or any tie to the bacteria TMDL or municipal
stormwater permit. The opportunity is ripe for adding these enforcement elements to the City’s
modified consent decree. Only then can they be enforced by the appropriate regulatory agency. 4. GARNER SUPPORT FROM STATE AND FEDERAL PARTNERS
Each case study involved federal and state partners working towards a common goal to protect
a valued resource. In New Orleans and Boston, State and Federal agencies played an important
role in helping to ensure the success of the cleanup. In Boston, EPA developed the Clean Charles
Initiative, issued a report card for the River, and provided significant funding. They also conducted
a study that showed a healthy Charles River contributed over $100 million to the local economy
to help garner public support. New Orleans received similar financial support from EPA and State
agencies to clean up Lake Pontchartrain. In Baltimore, financial support from State and Federal agencies has been provided in the form
of grants to assist with consent decree projects; however, because the amount of these grants
has not been publicized it is not obvious that there is strong backing by these agencies. EPA
has selected the Patapsco Watershed (which includes the Baltimore Harbor) as one of 19 focus
areas for a partnership program to restore urban waterways. Greater support—both financial
and technical—from the regional office and State agencies would be highly beneficial, as it was
in Boston and New Orleans. We recommend that if grants are awarded, they be publicized to
communicate to the public that the City has multi-agency support for cleaning up its streams and
Harbor.
5. FOSTER STRONG LOCAL PARTNERSHIPS
In all of the cities we profiled, the relationship between the city and the local watershed group
was particularly important as they worked together to find and fix pollution problems. While
these environmental organizations were typically involved in the original lawsuits that resulted
in the consent decrees, their relationships have evolved into mutually beneficial partnerships. These grassroots organizations help the cities identify water quality problems, while also acting
as a sort of watchdog, and the cities use their data to track down and fix the problems. Because
they are working towards a common goal, the partners trust each other to work together to find
solutions. While Baltimore City Department of Public Works also works with Blue Water Baltimore and
the Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper on numerous activities including restoration projects,
public outreach and monitoring, there are strong differences of opinion regarding the role Blue
Water Baltimore should play in the renegotiated consent decree process. To Baltimore City’s
consternation, after two years of dialogue and little progress, Blue Water Baltimore took legal
action in 2013 to have a seat at the table during the negotiation process with EPA. Through these
negotiations, Blue Water Baltimore seeks to improve citizen representation and assure maximum
improvements to water quality and the protection of public health.
12
These types of issues between environmental organizations and municipalities are not unique
to Baltimore. In almost every case study, there was contention between the sewer authority
and the local environmental group that resulted in lawsuits ending in consent decrees and other
enforcement actions. Regardless of these past differences, the municipality, environmental groups
and other stakeholders have found a way to overcome their differences and effectively work
together. This “spirit of collaboration” is a major contributor to the case study cities’ successes
and could greatly improve the Harbor’s chances for a successful cleanup if the City can build a
stronger working relationship with its environmental community.
6. INCORPORATE TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATIONS
Los Angeles has successfully incorporated the use of new technology to help meet their consent
decree. Low flow diversions, which redirect water from small rain events to sewage treatment
plants for additional treatment, have been used in the City primarily during the summer months
when use of area beaches is highest. In a 3-year monitoring study of six low flow diversions in
storm drains discharging directly to Santa Monica Bay, the results show at least 90% reductions in
pollutant concentrations from post-construction samples compared to pre-construction samples.
All post-installation samples had pollutant concentrations below water contact recreation limits.
In Baltimore, these practices could possibly be very effective but would need to be adapted for
the local rainfall conditions and topography. CONCLUSION
These case studies show that comparable cities across the country have been successful at
eliminating sewage flowing into their rivers and harbors. Baltimore’s sewage problems, remedial
actions, and financial resources dedicated to the cleanup are in line with that of other cities, but
Baltimore has yet to see significant water quality improvements. While it is true that Baltimore’s
original consent decree timeline may have been too ambitious, the case study cities have been
more resourceful, more dynamic, and more comprehensive in their approach to solving their
sewage problems. It is important to remember that this is a persistent threat to public health and,
therefore, the process of repairing the City’s infrastructure should be as aggressive, transparent,
and collaborative as possible regardless of the timeline.
Baltimore City now has an opportunity to make changes based on lessons learned from these
other cities. It is recommended that the Department of Public Works incorporate some of the
key elements that made the other cities successful including: focusing on water quality as the
endpoint for consent decree projects, using consistent water quality monitoring to track progress,
and addressing both wet and dry weather sources of sewage. The ability to enforce the consent
decree through multiple avenues is also important, as is consideration of new technologies that
can reduce costs, or result in water quality improvements more quickly. Perhaps one of the most
important overarching factors responsible for the successes in the case study cities is the strong
support of local, state and federal partners working towards a common goal. 13
It is important for the City to prioritize projects that will eliminate the last of the two sewer
overflow structures on the Jones Falls, but not at the expense of ignoring the more insidious
problem of continuous sewage leaks throughout the system. These problems must be weighed
in the same context before the City can make an informed decision about how to address them.
Baltimore’s vision of a clean Harbor is in sight. The time is now to make course corrections by
transferring lessons from other cities that have successfully addressed their sewage problems. We can still have swimmable waterways if City government, environmental nonprofits, and
everyday citizens learn from these success stories and come together in support of a clean and
healthy harbor. 14
CASE STUDY:
UPPER CHATTAHOOCHEE RIVER, ATLANTA, GA
The City of Atlanta reduced their untreated sewage flows to
the Chattahoochee by 99% from the 1990s to 2014.
BACKGROUND
The Chattahoochee River flows for 430 miles from the north Georgia mountains to the FloridaGeorgia border, where it meets up with the Flint River to form the Apalachicola River and eventually
empties into the Gulf of Mexico. The upper portion of this heavily dammed river encompasses
3,600 square miles from its headwaters through metropolitan Atlanta down to West Point Lake
(EPA, 2000). Lake Lanier in the headwaters and the Chattahoochee River National Recreational
Area—which includes a 48-mile stretch—are heavily used for recreation, including swimming,
boating, canoeing, tubing and fishing. Although the river runs through a portion of the City
proper, most Atlanta residents do not use this portion for recreation instead traveling the 12
miles to the Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area, 45 miles to Lake Lainer, or 80 miles
to West Point Lake.
Figure 1: Map of Upper
Chattahoochee River Watershed. River miles shown
are distances from Gulf of
Mexico. (EPA, 2000)
15
TheChattahoocheeisusedtosupply70%oftheCityofAtlanta’sdrinkingwater,aswellasfor
wastewaterassimilation,agriculture,recreationandpowergeneration(CRK,2015).Allofthese
uses put a huge strain on the river, especially as Atlanta’s population keeps growing. Cities
downstreamarealsoaffectedbyAtlanta’spollutionandgrowingwaterdemand.Sevenofthe
ten watershedsin theCitydrain intotheUpperChattahoochee,including LongIsland, Nancy,
Peachtree, Proctor, Sandy, Utoy, and Camp Creeks (City of Atlanta Department of Watershed
Management,2015).
Upper Chattahoochee River
QUICK STATS
Atlanta
Typeofwaterbody:
River(freshwater)
Annualrainfall:
47.12inches
Watershedarea:
3,600mi2
Population:
CityofAtlanta:456,000(2014)
Averagedepth:
3-6ft(nearAtlanta)
Sewersystem:
85%separate,15%combined
Activeshippingchannels?
No
MS4status:
PhaseI
Watershedpopulation:
3.5M(1996)
Recreation:
Onekayaklaunch
andoneboatramp
Sources: EPA, 2000; U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; Clean Water Atlanta, n.d.
SEWAGE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Major sewage sources: CSOs; dry and wet weather SSOs
Withanoutdatedcombinedsewersystemandalackofinvestmentinthemaintenanceandrepair
of both combined and separate sewer pipes, the City of Atlanta’s sewer system was plagued
by clogged and broken pipes which caused thousands of overflows and spills of untreated
wastewaterintotheChattahoocheeRiveranditstributariesintheearly1990s.Thiscontributed
to poor water quality downstream, affecting the fish population and generating public health
issues, with over 600 stream miles in Atlanta being listed as impaired in the State of Georgia
Environmental Protection Division’s 1994-1995 305(b) report. Rapid development in Atlanta
addedtothepollutionissue,astheantiquatedinfrastructurecouldnothandlethehugeinflux
ofpeople.TheCitywasfacingmillionsofdollarsinpenaltiesduetotheseweroverflows,yetstill
wasnotinvestingenoughintoupgradingthesewersystem.FromNovember1992toMay1999,
thestatehadassessedtheCity$20.7millioninfinesforviolations(EPA,1999).
16
In 1995, the Chattahoochee Riverkeeper (CRK) and several cities and counties downstream of
AtlantafiledalawsuitagainsttheCityfordischargingsewageintotheRiver,violatingtheClean
WaterActandtheGeorgiaWaterQualityControlAct.Thesuitwassettledin1998andaspartof
theconsentdecree,theCitypaida$2.5millioncivilpenaltyandwasrequiredtofixthecombined
seweroverflows(CSOs)tobeincomplianceandspend$27.5milliontocreateaGreenwaycorridor.
In1999,theconsentdecreewasamendedtoincludeprojectseliminatingseparatesanitarysewer
overflow(SSO)violations(EPA,1999).Theestimatedsewerimprovementprogramcostwas$3
billion,with$950millionforCSOcapitalcosts(CleanWaterAtlanta,n.d.).
KEY PLAYERS
EPA Region 4:ConvenientlylocatedinAtlanta,EPAisresponsibleforCleanWater
ActenforcementinAtlanta,includingtheCSOandSSOconsentdecree.In2013,
theEPAUrbanWatersFederalPartnershipdesignatedProctorCreektobeapriority
UrbanWaterslocation,increasingtheresourcesavailable.
Georgia Environmental Protection Division (EPD): EPDistheStateagency
responsibleforcollectingwaterqualitydatatodeterminethestatusofwater
impairmentsanddevelopingTMDLs.
City of Atlanta:TheCityisthedefendantinthe1998consentdecreeforsewer
overflows.Knownasa“SewerMayor,”theCity’sMayorShirleyFranklinpushedfor
thesewersystemupgradesanddevelopedtheCleanWaterAtlantaProgram.
Chattahoochee Riverkeeper: TheCRKinitiatedthepushthateventuallyledto
theconsentdecree.Asaresultofconcernsfromcitizens,theycontinuetohelpthe
CityofAtlantabytakingontheroleofbacteriamonitoringtoensurequickresponses
bytheCity.
Citizens of Atlanta: Thecitizenscontinuetopaythehighpricesofthewaterand
sewerbillsinthecity,andvotedtoincreasesalestaxtohelpfundtheseprojects.
SEWAGE POLLUTION SOLUTIONS
In2001,ShirleyFranklinwaselectedasMayorofAtlantaandwassubsequentlyknownasthe
“sewermayor.”FranklinembracedtheinfrastructureneedsandinitiatedtheCleanWaterAtlanta
Program,withtheconsentdecreeasthedriver.TheCleanWaterAtlantaProgramfocusedon
17
capital improvement programs to improve water quality in Atlanta. Franklin moved the waterrelated services from the Department of Public Works to the new Department of Watershed
Management. $759 million was spent from 1998-2009 for the CSO Consent Decree, and $916
million spent from 1999-2012 for the SSO Consent Decree.
In accordance with the consent decree, the city accelerated their sewer improvements, including:
• Sewer System Evaluation Survey with closed circuit TV
• Capacity certification program to review building permit applications that propose adding new flows into the sewer system
• Grease permitting program
• Management plans to operate collection system more effectively
In order to fund all these projects, the City of Atlanta has the
highest water (including water, sewer and stormwater) rates
in the country at $326 per month for a family of four (Circle of
Blue, 2015). Although it is a burden on the citizens, most feel
that it is necessary for public health. The City also implemented
a 1% increase in sales tax, known as Municipal Option Sales Tax
(MOST), which helps transfer some of the costs to visitors and
business people who use the City’s water resources but don’t
pay the water and sewer bill. The tax was reauthorized twice by
voters since its inception in 2004. This tax has provided over $700
million from 2004 and 2010, and is expected to generate another
$750 million (City of Atlanta, n.d.). The funds have helped the
City’s water infrastructure projects including construction
of Nancy Creek Tunnel, eliminating SSOs in North Atlanta;
inspection of 1,596 miles of Atlanta’s 1,600 miles of sewer pipe;
and rehabilitation/replacement of 460 miles of damaged or
leaking pipes.
The City cleans 25% of the entire sewer system every year, focusing on hotspots that have the
greatest need. This program also works with the City’s Grease Management Program. Although
the City completed their original consent decree aimed at reducing CSOs in 2009, they have not
yet met the requirements of the amended consent decree, aimed at reducing SSOs. In 2012,
Atlanta was granted a 13-year extension from the original completion date of 2014 to implement
the changes needed to meet the amended consent decree (City of Atlanta, 2014a). The extension
was granted based on the $445 million worth of work remaining and financial constraints of
the City. The City hired consultants to review revenue and spending projections, and found that
with the recession and the strain on non-consent decree infrastructure (e.g., drinking water), a
13-year extension will be able to help Atlanta and its citizens reduce the burden of meeting the
remainder of the costs and still maintain other necessary infrastructure in the City.
18
In conjunction with the infrastructure projects, the City also conducts a Long-Term Watershed
Monitoring Program to track water quality improvements. USGS, CRK, and the City of Atlanta work
together to monitor 20 sites across the City and use the data to track progress as well as identify
sources of impairment. In addition to this monitoring, the CRK started the Neighborhood Water
Watch program in 2010. This program is aimed at finding sewage leaks through the use of local
volunteers testing for E. coli. They currently have over 70 sites and partner with over 30 different
organizations. The CRK developed a monitoring plan that the EPA certified, gaining validation
of their science. Now they are able to provide solid, trustable data for the City, decreasing the
burden on them for monitoring and allowing the City to use their limited resources on focused
areas.
This extensive monitoring program has shown to be a tremendous benefit to the City. In 2013,
the Neighborhood Water Watch volunteers tested an area of Proctor Creek and found chronically
high levels of bacteria. The area was part of an infrastructure upgrade, where the City of Atlanta
renovated an underground pipe system, intending to separate stormwater flow from the sewage
flow. CRK contacted the City about their findings, leading to an extensive camera survey of over
20 miles. The City found that thirteen sewer pipes had accidently been left connected to the
stormwater pipes and were discharging raw sewage into the stream. Without the help of the
volunteers, it would have taken much longer for the City to find out about the illicit connection
and to fix the system. The sound science from the CRK allows the City to act quickly to resolve
these problems. In 2013, the EPA designated Proctor Creek, a tributary of the Chattahoochee
that runs through Atlanta, as one of 19 priority Urban Waters location in the U.S. The EPA and the
partners in the program are working to improve water quality, create green space, increase green
infrastructure, decrease public health issues, and advance economic development in the area.
PROGRESS TO DATE
Spending over $2 billion dollars, the City of Atlanta went from having a severely failing sewer
system to reducing their untreated sewage flow by 99% in 2014 compared to the 1990s. CSOs
were reduced to an expected average of four per year, compared to 100+ per year before 2000
(City of Atlanta, 2014b). All the Capital Relief Projects have been completed, with the remaining
years and funding saved for the sewer rehabilitation projects. This remaining 1% of sewage flow
will be address in stages through 2027, focusing on the most needed upgrades first. All 1,574
miles of the sewer system have been surveyed and over 373 miles (71%) of the system have been
rehabilitated (Clean Water Atlanta, 2015). The Chattahoochee River near Atlanta is still not a popular place for water recreation, due to
the presence of the water treatment plant and low water levels. Much of the tributaries are
channeled, making it difficult to recreate in. Specifically in the poorer, urban areas, these waters
tend to still be perceived as sewer water. Community groups, such as West Atlanta Watershed
Alliance (WAWA), are working with neighborhoods to educate them about water quality and to
help clean up the river. 19
TIMELINE
1994:ChattahoocheeRiverkeeperfiledLawsuitagainstCityofAtlanta
1998:CasesettledwithaConsentDecreetoeliminateCSOviolations
1999:ConsentDecreeamendedtoincludeeliminatingSSOs
2001:ShirleyFranklinelectedasMayorofAtlanta
2002:DepartmentofWatershedManagementcreated
2003:LongTermWaterQualityMonitoringProgramcreated
2004:MOSTtaxapprovedbyAtlantacitizens
2008:ConsentDecreecompletedforCSOs
2010:NeighborhoodWaterWatchcreated
2014:Seweroverflowsreducedby99%(2004baseline)
2027:RevisedConsentDecreedeadlineforSSOs
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
Having government leadership back the issue of failing sewer infrastructure was definitely a
keyfactorinthesuccessstoryofAtlanta.Thisputthegovernmentandthecitizensworkingon
thesameside,allowingforvariouspartnershipstooccur,leveragingresourceseffi
ciently.The
partnership between the City of Atlanta and the CRK is very important in reducing SSOs. The
volunteerswiththeNeighborhoodWaterWatchprogramwereabletohelptheCitymonitorthe
river,andwithCRK,wereabletobecertainofanissuetoalerttheproperorganizationtofixthe
situation.LikelyduetotheMayorFranklin’sinitiatives,theissuebecameknowntocitizensacross
Atlanta,andtheysupportedincreasesinwaterfeesandsalestaxtohelppaytofixtheseissues.
20
MOTIVATING FACTORS
Regulatory: ConsentdecreerequiredreductionsinSSOandCSO,aswellas
monitoring.
Enforcement: Beforetheconsentdecree,Atlantawasfinedforalmost$20
millionforviolationsoftheCleanWaterAct.
Funding: TheMOSTtaxprovided$700kfrom2004-2010forsewerupgrades.
Champions:TheCity’s“sewermayor”ShirleyFranklinpushedforthesewer
systemupgradesanddevelopedtheCleanWaterAtlantaProgram.
Local Partners: ChattahoocheeRiverkeeperrepresentedthecitizens’
disapprovalofhowtheyhandledthesewersituation.CRK,alongwithover30
otherpartnersworkedtoincreaseeducationandoutreach.
Public Engagement: ThecitizensofAtlantavotedtoincreasesalestaxtohelp
fundtheseissues.
SOURCES
CleanWaterAtlanta,n.d.CleanWaterAtlantaOverview.
http://www.cleanwateratlanta.org
CleanWaterAtlanta,2015.FirstAmendedConsentDecreeSemi-AnnualStatusReport.
http://www.atlantawatershed.org/default/?linkServID=6DB7B8A8-0AE3-4F8A-A62D85745CC2C
7E3&showMeta=2&ext=.pdf
ChattahoocheeRiverkeeper,2015.RiverUses.http://chattahoochee.org/river-uses/
CircleofBlue,2015.PriceofWater2015:Up6Percentin30MajorU.S.Cities;41PercentRise
Since2010.http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2015/world/price-of-water-2015-up-6-percent-in-30-major-u-s-cities-41-percent-rise-since-2010/
CityofAtlanta.N.d.MunicipalOptionSalesTax(MOST).http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.
aspx?page=755
21
City of Atlanta, 2014a. City of Atlanta Meets Major Consent Decree Milestone On Time, Under
Budget. http://www.atlantaga.gov/index.aspx?page=672&recordid=2932
City of Atlanta, 2014b. Implementing Green Infrastructure in Atlanta. http://www.seswa.org/assets/Services/Seminars/April2014/07%20-%20macrina.pdf
City of Atlanta Department of Watershed Management, 2015. Office of Watershed Protection.
http://www.atlantawatershed.org/inside-dwm/offices/watershed-protection/
EPA 1999. U.S., GEORGIA, AND ATLANTA REACH SETTLEMENT TO FIX CITY’S AGING SEWER SYSTEM. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/016bcfb1deb9fecd85256aca005d74df/1d9bf6
7474410410852567bd0073d60c!OpenDocument
EPA. 2000. Progress in Water Quality: An Evaluation of the National Investment in Municipal Wastewater Treatment. http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/wastewater/treatment/upload/2002_06_28_wquality_chap10.pdf
US Census Bureau. 2014. Atlanta (city), Georgia. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/
states/13/1304000.html
22
CASE STUDY:
CHARLES RIVER, BOSTON, MA
In July 2013, recreational swimming for the general public
was permitted for the first time in over 50 years
BACKGROUND
TheCharlesRiverruns80milesfromHopkinton,MassachusettstotheBostonHarbor.Theriver
splitsCambridgeandBostonanddrainsa308squaremilewatershed,hometo900,000people.
The Charles River watershed is comprised of 35 towns and cities and has 20 dams along the
way.Theriverisdividedintothreeregions:theruralupperbasin,suburbanmiddleregion,and
urbanlowerbasin,whereBostonislocated.Theupperandmiddlewatershedscontainover8,000
acresofprotectedwetlands,knownastheCharlesRiverNaturalValleyStorageareas.TheBoston
WaterandSewerCommission(BWSC)maintainsandoperates1,512milesofsewerpipes—677
milesofsanitarysewer,185milesofcombinedsewer,and657milesofstormsewer—(BWSC,
2012)inthelowerbasin.TheMassachusettsWaterResourceAuthority(MWRA)managesthe
DeerIslandSewerTreatmentPlant,whereBWSCsendsitswastewater.
TheRiver’simportanceasarecreationalcenterpieceisespeciallyevidentinthelowerCharles,
whichislinedwithboathouses,joggingpathsandsportsfieldsandiswellknownforrowing,
sculling, dragon boating, and sailing. This area is home to Community Boating, the Harvard
UniversitySailingCenter,andtheMITSailingPavilion.TheHeadoftheCharlesRegattaisheld
hereeveryOctober.InearlyJune,theannualHongKongBostonDragonboatFestivalisheldin
Cambridge.
QUICK STATS
Boston
Charles River
Typeofwaterbody:
River(freshwater)
Annualrainfall:
43.8inches
Watershedarea:
308mi2
Population:
655,884(2014)
Averagedepth:
6-40ft
Sewersystem:
80%separate,20%combined
Activeshippingchannels?
No
MS4status:
PhaseI
Watershedpopulation:
900,000
Recreation:
Rowing,sailing,
swimming,boating
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014; CRWA, n.d.; BWSC, n.d. Mass.gov, n.d.
23
SEWAGE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Prior to the 1900s, the Charles River was an important source of industrial power, with 20 dams
constructed along its length. As a result of these activities, the River became heavily polluted
from industrial and domestic waste discharges. In the 1900s, extensive urbanization, especially
in the lower portion of the watershed, further overwhelmed the ability of the River to cleanse
itself. The population growth also decreased the City’s ability to treat domestic, municipal, and
industrial wastes.
Increasing awareness of these water quality problems resulted in closure of the River for
swimming in the 1950s. With the formation of the Charles River Watershed Association in 1965
and the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, significant efforts were made to reduce sewage
and industrial discharges to the River. Prior to 1988, over 1.7 billion gallons per year of combined
sewer overflows (CSO) were discharged into the Charles River. Efforts to address the area’s longstanding sewage problem intensified in the 1980s with three different lawsuits involving the City
of Quincy, EPA, and the Conservation Law Fund (CLF), which ended with a Federal Court Order
for the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) to clean up Boston Harbor in 1985 (University
of Massachusetts Boston, n.d.). The state of the Boston Harbor was even discussed during a
presidential campaign in 1988, with then Vice President Bush calling the Harbor “the dirtiest”
in America and the “harbor of shame,” a jab at his opponent, Massachusetts Governor Michael
Dukakis (NY Times, 1988).
In 2010, CLF and the EPA filed a lawsuit against the BWSC for failing to control polluted discharges
from its stormwater systems, violating their National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) and Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permits. The EPA found numerous
BWSC stormwater outfalls with untreated sanitary sewage discharge (U.S. District Court District
of Massachusetts, 2012). In 2012, the BWSC entered into a Consent Decree with EPA that required the utility to minimize
the discharge of sewage and other pollutants into the Boston waterbodies, focusing on storm
drains and sanitary sewer systems. The Consent Decree includes
• Monitoring for and removal of illicit discharges of untreated sewage
• Stormwater runoff best management practices
• Better reporting and response to sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
• Monitoring and enforcement at construction sites and industrial facilities
SEWAGE POLLUTION SOLUTIONS
In 1985, the Massachusetts Water Resource Authority (MWRA) was formed to manage the water
and sewer systems. The 1985 Court Order directed the MWRA to build a primary and secondary
treatment facility and to construct an outfall pipe to send the treated sewage elsewhere. MWRA
was also tasked with developing a CSO reduction plan and reconstruction of much of the sewer
system in metropolitan Boston. The total cost of these upgrades is estimated to be $3.8 billion
dollars (MWRA, 2009).
24
In 1995, EPA New England issued a “report card” for the Charles River, and its resulting “D” score
prompted EPA to launch an ambitious effort called the Clean Charles River Initiative. The goal of
this initiative was to make the lower Charles River, from Watertown to Boston Harbor, “fishable”
and “swimmable” by 2005. The Charles River Watershed Association (CRWA) was tasked with
collecting the bacteria data for the report card. The volunteer monitoring program, with over 80
volunteers, monitor 35 sites every month and the data is sent to the EPA to analyze to produce
the report cards. This set of data is the most consistent and comprehensive in the Charles River.
The primary focus of the Clean Charles River Initiative has been on reducing bacteria by
addressing CSOs and reducing illicit sewage discharge to storm drain systems. EPA targeted
enforcement efforts on CSO discharges to the Charles River as well as to Boston Harbor and
South Boston beaches. This resulted in implementation of major capital improvement projects,
such as sewer separation, facility upgrades, localized hydraulic relief and construction of new
wastewater facilities. The changes reduced CSO discharges from 1.7 billion gallons per year in
1988 to approximately 20 million gallons in 2014, and is expected to keep dropping over the next
few years (EPA, n.d.). This billion dollar investment yielded dividends of a drastic reduction of
CSOs into Boston Harbor and its tributaries leaving Boston with some of the cleanest urban rivers
and urban beaches in the nation.
The BSWC Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination (IDDE) program has spent over $4.67
million dollars from 1999-2012 to investigate illegal connections. The Citywide Illegal Connection
Investigation Program Phase 3 began in 2012 with a contract ceiling of $3.18 million for four years.
In 2014, BSWC spent $482,236 (not including the cost of permits, inspection fees, pavement
restoration, lateral testing/cleaning, or cost covered by property owners) to correct or repair
ninety-six illicit discharges, removing 41,886 gallons per day (GPD) of wastewater from receiving
waters (BWSC, 2014a). Within the lower Charles River (Boston, Cambridge, Newton, Brookline
Watertown and Waltham), over 48,000 gallons per day of sewage contaminated stormwater has
been removed from the River since 2004 (EPA, n.d.).
The 2012 Consent Decree has motivated the BWSC to continue to clean up the waters around
Boston. BWSC had to pay a $235,000 civil penalty for violating the Clean Water Act and perform a
supplemental environmental project worth at least $160,000 (EPA, 2012). The BWSC is required
to conduct Dry and Wet Weather Outfall Monitoring and remove any illicit discharge found
within 60 days of identifying them. BWSC is also required to report all SSO events to the EPA and
Massachusetts DEP within 24 hours and developed a SSO Emergency Response Plan.
Since 1978, tremendous progress has been made in Boston (BWSC, 2014b):
• Replaced 82.8 miles of damaged sanitary sewers and drains
• Rehabilitated 54.7 miles of sewers and drains
• Inspected 585 miles of sewer pipes with CCTV,
• Cleaned 45.6 miles of large sewer drains
• Installed 94 miles of new storm drains to separate CSO
25
Over $3.8 billion has been spent in the last 20 years to fix the sewer issues. As of today, the
Charles River is safe for swimming 70% of the time, but significant water quality problems still
exist, primarily related to bacteria from CSOs and illicit sewage discharge to storm drains and
excess nutrients (primarily phosphorus) from stormwater runoff. The nutrients contribute to
algae blooms containing a toxic form of algae called cyanobacteria. Despite the tremendous work
done in the Charles, there are still occasions where the water is unsafe for swimming. In order
to best predict when bacteria would be high without the need to rely on intensive monitoring,
CWRA invested in monitoring and modeling the data. This model is used as a predictive tool for
the Charles River Notification Flagging System (Eleria, A. et al., 2005).
The Flagging System uses a system of color coded flags to notify the public when the river is
safe for boating or when a public health threat may be present due to bacterial contamination
or toxic algae blooms. Flags are posted by CRWA at 9 boating facilities from July-October and
are blue (safe), yellow (risks are possible) or red (risks are probable or confirmed). CRWA uses a
mathematical model to estimate the probability of the river water exceeding state standards for
bacteria. The model relies on recent rainfall data and river conditions. Health risks due to toxic
algae blooms are based on the weekly water sampling and communication with public health
officials.
To increase public awareness, there is a buoy in front of the Museum of Science that streams live
data on the EPA Charles River Website. An exhibit on the Charles River will be placed inside the
museum, teaching visitors about the River and the urban environment. The CWRA bacteria data
is posted on their website for the public to see.
PROGRESS TO DATE
Significant water quality improvements have been made in the Charles as a result of the Clean
Charles River Initiative. By 2004, the River report card score went from a “D” to a “B+” and has
remained there or risen ever since, earning its highest score of an “A-“ in 2013. The latest (2014)
“report card” issued by the EPA gave the Charles River a B+, with the river meeting the boating
bacteria standards 91% of the time and swimming standards 65% of the time. This is a drastic
difference from the 39% (boating) and 19% (swimming) the River received in 1995. The Charles is
now regarded as one of the cleanest urban waters in the U.S.
Over the years, there has been an increase of people making use of the harbor, from duck tours
to paddle boarding to kayaking. In the Summer of 2013, the first public swim in over 50 years
was held in the Charles River, with swimmers accessing the water from a dock to avoid contact
with contaminated bottom sediments. It was a momentous day in the River’s history—and a
celebration for so many people who have worked for decades to improve the water quality of the
river. The Charles River Conservancy has made this community swim an annual event. This event
has demonstrated the great enthusiasm among the public to reclaim the Charles for recreational
swimming. Another indicator of improvement is that wildlife has returned to the River, which
now hosts otters, beavers, fish, herons, hawks, herring, and migrating loons.
26
TIMELINE
1950sCharlesRiverclosedforswimmingduetopollution
1965CharlesRiverWatershedAssociationformed
1982-1985VariouslawsuitsinvolvingTownofQuincy,Metropolitan
DistrictCommission(MDC),ConservationLawFundandEPAdueto
dischargesofuntreatedsewageintotheCharlesandBostonHarbor
1985FederalCourtOrderissuedtoMassachusettsWaterResource
AuthoritytocleanupBostonHarbor
1995CharlesRiverInitiativelaunchedbyEPA,receiveda“D”scoreonthe
CharlesRiverreportcard
2004TheRiverreceiveda“B”scoreontheCharlesRiverreportcard
2006SettlementbetweenEPAandMassachusettsWaterResource
AuthoritytoimplementalongtermcontrolplantoreduceCSOs.
2009MassachusettslegislaturepassesabilltoestablishaCharlesRiver
WaterQualityCommissionchargedwithinvestigatingthefeasibilityof
andwhatisneededtomakethelowerCharlessafeforswimming.
2012BostonWaterandSewerCommissionentersintoConsentDecree
withEPAfocusingonsewageinstormwateroutfalls
2012CitywideIllegalConnectionInvestigationProgramestablished
2013FirstpublicswimintheCharlesinover50years
2013:TheRiverreceiveda“A”scoreontheCharlesRiverreportcard
2014CSOdischargesreducedby99.5%from1988
27
Photo Credit: Charles River Watershed Association
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
•
•
•
•
•
•
MWRA was initially resistant in CSO investments because they did not believe reducing CSOs would have a big impact on the river due to the other sources of contamination. Various
drivers were able to convince MWRA to make changes, including the court order to reduce CSOs, monitoring data by the CRWA showing improvements, significant EPA funding through the Clean Charles Initiative, and media coverage of the Initiative (Metzenbaum, S., 2001).
Existence of strong and technically advanced local watershed organizations to provide a
scientific basis for goals and actions through collection of water quality data, and also to
advocate for legislation that directed funding and resources towards the watershed.
The Consent Decree requires that the BWSC IDDE program report all SSO events to EPA and Massachusetts DEP within 24 hours and remove identified illicit discharge within 60 days.
Notification of the public about Charles River water quality issues through the report card,
flag system, and various outreach programs.
Various and coordinated efforts to promote public swimming on the Charles and to connect this goal with an improved quality of life have heightened public awareness and support.
The key principles of the Clean Charles River Initiative that made it successful included the focus on a high value resource; an integration of a variety of federal, state and municipal tools, including enforcement, assistance, education, and permitting all directed at solving a clearly articulated problem and achieving a clearly articulated goal; measurement of
progress in the metrics of actual environmental improvement; and working in partnership with the full range of institutions that are necessary for watershed restoration.
28
MOTIVATING FACTORS
Regulatory:CourtOrderin1985andConsentDecreein2012.
Champions:JudgeA.DavidMazzonepresidedoverthefederallawsuitin1985.
HisrulingledtotheBostonHarborcleanup.EPANewEnglandRegionalAdministratorJohnP.DeVillarsdevelopedtheCleanCharlesInitiative,creatingacollaborationbetweenEPA,otherFederalandstateagencies,NGOsandtheprivate
sector(TheCharlesRiverConservancy,2011).
Funding: TheEPAprovidedfundingfortheCleanCharlesInitiativeandawarded
$400,000totheCharlesRiverWatershedAssociationformonitoringanddevelopmentoftheflagwarningsystem.Otherfundingsourcesforthecleanup
includedfederalgrantsandfunds,StateRevolvingFunds,localmunicipalfunds
andwater/seweruserfees.MWRAestimatedthattheaveragehomesawarate
increaseof420%between1985whenthecleanupbeganand1992.
Local Partners: CharlesRiverWatershedAssociation(CRWA)hasbeenfocused
oncleaningtheriverforthe50years,takingahugepartinbacteriamonitoring.
ConservationLawFundtookpartinbothlawsuitsandtheCharlesRiverConservancyhasspearheadedeffortstobringrecreationbacktotheRiver.
SOURCES
BWSC,n.d.SewerSystem.
http://www.bwsc.org/ABOUT_BWSC/systems/sewer/PresentDay_sewer.asp
BWSC,2012.SanitarySewerOverflowsEmergencyResponsePlan.
http://www.bwsc.org/REGULATIONS/Consent_Decree/SSOERP%20Final%20Report.pdf
BWSC,2014a.2014StormwaterManagementReport.http://www.bwsc.org/ABOUT_BWSC/systems/stormwater_mgt/BWSC%20SW%20REPORT%202014.pdf
BWSC2014b.
http://www.bwsc.org/ABOUT_BWSC/reports/PDFs/CIP%202015-2017.PDF
CharlesRiverWatershedAssociation(CRWA).n.d.CharlesRiverWatershed.
http://www.crwa.org/charles-river-watershed
29
Eleria, A., R. Vogel. 2005. Predicting Fecal Coliform Bacteria Levels in the Charles River, Massachusetts, USA. http://www.crwa.org/field-science/water-quality-notification
Mass.gov. n.d. Charles River Watershed. http://www.mass.gov/eea/waste-mgnt-recycling/water-resources/preserving-water-resources/mass-watersheds/charles-river-watershed.html
Metzenbaum, Shelley. May 2001. Measurements that Matters: Cleaning up the Charles River.
https://www.innovations.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/RPP-2001-05.pdf
MWRA. September 2, 2009. The Deer Island Sewage Treatment Plant.
http://www.mwra.com/03sewer/html/sewditp.htm
NY Times. September 2, 1988. Bush, in Enemy Waters, Says Rival Hindered Cleanup of Boston
Harbor. http://www.nytimes.com/1988/09/02/us/bush-in-enemy-waters-says-rival-hinderedcleanup-of-boston-harbor.html
The Charles River Conservancy. 2011. EPA News: International Award Recognizes Successful
Ongoing Work to Clean the Charles River http://www.thecharles.org/2011/10/epa-news-international-award-recognizes-successful-ongoing-work-to-clean-the-charles-river/
U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. Boston (city), Massachusetts.
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/25/2507000.html
U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts. 2012. Conservation Law Foundation and United
States v. Boston Water and Sewer Commision and Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/bwsc-cd.pdf
U.S. EPA. N.d. The Charles River Initiative.
http://www2.epa.gov/charlesriver/charles-river-initiative
U.S. EPA. 2012. Settlement Requires Boston Water and Sewer Commission to Remedy Sewer
and Stormwater Discharges. http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/DE3E8674AA08AB9F85257A6300590FD1
University of Massachusetts Boston. n.d. Mazzone, Judge A. David : Chamber Papers on the
Boston Harbor Clean Up Case, 1985-2005. http://www.lib.umb.edu/node/1620
http://www.boston.com/yourtown/cambridge/articles/2011/10/11/a_river_that_is_clean_
and_clear_again/?page=2
30
CASE STUDY:
SANTA MONICA BAY, LOS ANGELES, CA
Los Angeles has reduced 83% of their sanitary sewer
overflows since 2000/2001
BACKGROUND
Despiteitsdryclimateandhistoricdrought,theLosAngelesareahasanabundanceofwater
resources which include more than a dozen beaches spanning over 50 miles from Malibu to
Torrence Beach along Santa Monica Bay. These beaches provide a wide range of economic,
environmental, and public safety benefits to the State of California’s citizens, visitors, and
wildlife. They also provide habitat for numerous species and are an important source of food
for shorebirds, seabirds, marine mammals and fishes. The Bay’s extensive coastline provides
recreationalopportunitiesforanestimated500,000visitorsadayattheheightofthesummer
season.Thisincludesswimming,surfing,sportfishingandboating.
TheSantaMonicaBayWatersheddrains385squaremilescoveringsevenjurisdictionswith55
milesofcoastline.Thewatershedhasapproximately200separatestormdrainoutletsthatconvey
over30billiongallonsofrunofftotheBayeachyear.TheCityofLosAngelescontributes42square
milestothisdrainage.AsofMarch2012,theU.S.EPAhasapproved22totalmaximumdailyloads
(TMDLs)throughouttheregionthatlisttheCityofLosAngelesasaresponsiblejurisdiction.
QUICK STATS
Los Angeles
Santa Monica Bay
Typeofwaterbody:
Estuary
Annualrainfall:
10.62inches
Watershedarea:
385mi2
Population:
4million
Watershedpopulation:
2.18million
Sewersystem:
100%separate
MS4status:
PhaseI
Recreation:
TheCityoperates11open
waterfacilitiesoffering
fishing,paddleboating,
andsmallcraftprograms
31
Source: LA County Public Health
SEWAGE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
AnepidemiologicalstudyinSantaMonicaBay(Pruss,1998)wasoneofthefirstofitskindto
maketheconnectionbetweenincreasedhealthriskstopeoplewhoswaminmarinewatersand
proximitytooutfallscontaminatedbyurbanrunoff.Thisandotherstudiesestablishedthatthe
sourceofbacteriawasnoteffl
uentfromasewagetreatmentplant,butinsteadcamefromurban
runoffdischargedfromstormdrains.
Toaddresstheseandotherhistoricwaterqualityissuescausingbeachclosuresandlossofother
waterusesintheLosAngelesarea,a1999consentdecreebetweenU.S.EPA,HealtheBay,and
LosAngelesWaterkeeper(formerlySantaMonicaBayKeeper)wasissuedwhichdirectedtheU.S.
EPAtoensurethatTMDLsforallimpairedwatersonthe1998CWA303(d)listintheLosAngeles
Regionwereestablishedwithin13years.Theconsentdecreeidentified92waterbodypollutant
combinations in the Los Angeles Region, which has resulted in 57 TMDLs for over 175 water
bodiesthataddressnumerouspollutantimpairmentsincludingbacteria,metals,pesticides,PCBs
andtrash.
Source: LA Times
32
KEY PLAYERS
EPA Region 9:ResponsibleforCleanWaterActenforcementinCalifornia,
includingtheSSOconsentdecreeandbacteriaandtrashTMDLs.
Los Angeles Area Regional Water Quality Control Board: ThisState
agencycollectswaterqualitydatatodeterminethestatusofwaterimpairments,
overseesimplementationoftheMS4permitprogram,andisadefendantinthe
consentdecree.
Los Angeles Stormwater:AgencyunderEnvironmentLAresponsiblefor
implementingCityofLosAngelesStormwaterProgramstomeetTMDLs,MS4
permits,andotherregulatoryprograms.
Heal the Bay, and Los Angeles Waterkeeper (formerly Santa Monica
BayKeeper):NGOsnamedinthelawsuitresponsibleforthe1999consentdecree
andalsoimportantstakeholdersthathaveparticipatedinmonitoringandoutreach
activitiesthroughoutimplementation.
Inadditiontoitsroleintheconsentdecree,theSantaMonicaBayKeeperfiledalawsuitagainst
the City of Los Angeles in 1998 over sewer overflows that occurred during a severe El Niño
rainyseason.Theoverflowswerelinkedtowaterqualityimpactsthataffectedlocalbusinesses
and residents. The lawsuit, which was finally settled in 2004, resulted in a Collection System
SettlementAgreementbetweentheCityofLosAngelesandEPAandtheRegionalWaterQuality
ControlBoard.
In2002,abacteriaTMDLwasdevelopedfortheSantaMonicaBaywhichidentifieddryweather
flows from the storm drainage system as the primary source of controllable e.coli to the Bay.
SSOsinthewatershedareestimatedtobe2%ofthetotaldryweatherloadandanevensmaller
percentageofthewetweatherload;however,duringElNinowetweatherSSOscanbeexpected
to be a much greater source. According to the Santa Monica Bay bacteria TMDL, the specific
sources of bacteria from the storm drain system could not be identified and were attributed
toavarietyofnon-pointsourcesincludingsanitarysewerleaksandspills,illicitconnectionsof
sanitarylinestothestormdrainsystem,runofffromhomelessencampments,petwaste,wildlife,
illegaldischargesfromrecreationalvehicleholdingtanks,andmalfunctioningseptictanks,among
others.
33
One problem with the bacteria indicators used to assess water quality (e.g., e.coli, fecal coliform)
is that they are not specific to human sewage; therefore, fecal matter from animals and birds
can also be a source of elevated levels of bacteria. Microbial Source Tracking (MST) is a more
sophisticated assessment tool that uses a combination of techniques (e.g., genetic markers,
enteric virus detection) to isolate human-borne sources of bacteria. The most notable MST
studies in the Santa Monica Bay watershed were conducted in the Ballona Creek watershed,
a tributary that drains through the City of Los Angeles to Santa Monica Bay. This study used a
variety of MST methods and found human-specific fecal indicator bacteria and enteric viruses in
92% of all samples collected (Nobel et al., 2005).
SEWAGE POLLUTION SOLUTIONS
Environmental groups from the Los Angeles area and City planning staff began working together
through a stakeholder process in the early 2000s to collaboratively plan sewer and stormwater
systems to meet TMDLs, NPDES, and other regulatory requirements. This collaborative planning
drove the City to put a $500M bond (Proposition O) measure to a public vote for water quality
improvement projects – primarily for urban runoff and stormwater. These were generally multibenefit projects that created or improved habitat and recreation space. The environmental
organizations developed campaigns to promote the bond measure and it passed with 2/3 of the
general vote. This measure has been used to construct many regional runoff and stormwater
capture projects, plus many low flow diversions along coastal outfalls to reduce bacteria discharges.
One of the more successful approaches identified to address the bacteria TMDL is the diversion
of low-flow urban runoff to sanitary sewer treatment plants prior to reaching the waterways
(Minamide et al. 2011). A low flow diversion directs non-storm flows in storm drains to sewage
treatment plants for additional treatment. The diversion system includes a low flow diversion
weir; a stormwater/sediment separator; and a sump with pumps, control system, and discharge
pipes. The efficacy of low-flow diversions is dependent on several factors such as treatment and
transport capacity and assurance that the urban runoff pollutants will not upset the treatment
process at the waste treatment plant. Most of the low flow diversions to coastal areas require
pumping, which adds to their operation and maintenance. However, Los Angeles has implemented
low flow diversions using gravity flow to address bacteria and other contaminant flows to Santa
Monica Bay and the Los Angeles River as well.
The EPA does not include stormwater diversions in the list of “stormwater BMPs,” as the practice
of diverting dry weather or wet weather/first flush flows to a sanitary sewer collection system is
relatively new with potential challenges as well as benefits. Typically low flow diversions operate
during the summer months when the level of storm drain discharge is relatively low and the use
of Los Angeles beaches is high.
34
Low flow diversion structure (Source: CD:CDM 2005)
Since the late 1990s, 23 low flow diversions have been installed and divert flow to the Hyperion
Wastewater Treatment Plant where it is treated before being discharged into Santa Monica Bay.
In 2012, Los Angeles completed the last phase of a $40 million-plus dry-weather runoff diversion
project that diverts eight storm drains that operate year round during dry weather along the
Pacific Coast Highway into a sanitary sewer system and to the Hyperion Treatment Plant.
In 2005, the Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation developed a comprehensive plan that resulted in
the following actions to address the SSO problem:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Annual closed circuit television inspection and condition assessment of more than 600 miles of sewer.
Annual cleaning of more than 2,600 miles of sewer.
Annual inspection of 95 percent of permitted food service establishments for
compliance with the Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG) Control Program.
Building 55 sewer rehabilitation and replacement projects during the first three years.
Rehabilitate 50 miles of sewers per year up to year 10 and afterwards rehabilitate
60 miles per year in targeted SSO prone areas. Building 11 sewer relief projects, beginning design and construction of two more,
and identifying future relief projects in a capacity plan.
35
PROGRESS TO DATE
TheSSOeliminationplanhasresultedinsewerspillreductionsof83%percentfromthe2000–
2001baselineyearthrough2014.InFY2009-10therewereatotalof139sewerspillscompared
to687sewerspillsinthebaselineFY2000-01.Thisequatestoapproximately2.1sewerspillsper
100milesofsewer,whichisthelowestrecordedfortheCityandsubstantiallybelowthenational
averageof3.0sewerspillsper100milesofsewerpipeinthecollectionsystem.Asaresultofthe
City’schemicalrootcontrolprogram,rootrelatedsewerspillshavebeenreducedby76percent
sinceFY2002-03.Sewerspillscausedbyfats,oils,andgreasehavebeenreducedby91percent
sinceFY2000-01whentheCitybeganimplementingitsfats,oils,andgreaseControlProgram.
TheconservationgroupHealtheBaynotesintheirBeachReportCardfor2006-2007that,asa
resultoftheCity’slowflowdiversionprojectsandotherinitiatives,“Stretchesofbeachwithgood
TIMELINE
1999:ConsentDecreebetweenU.S.EPA,HealtheBay,andLosAngeles
Waterkeeper(formerlySantaMonicaBayKeeper)wasissuedrequiringthe
establishmentofmultipleTMDLsintheLosAngelesRegionby2012.
2002:LosAngelesAreaRegionalWaterQualityControlBoardadopteddry
andwetweatherbacteriaTMDLsfortheSantaMonicaBayBeaches.
2004:TheCityofLosAngelesandLAWaterkeeperreachedasettlement
agreement—theCollectionSystemSettlementAgreement(CSSA)—that
requiredtheCitytotakedrasticmeasurestocleanuptheirsystemand
eliminatethepollution;LosAngelesresidentspasseda$500million
waterbondknownasPropositionOthatprovidedfundingforTMDL
implementation.
2012:LosAngelescompletedthelastphaseofa$40million-plusdryweatherrunoffdiversionprojectthatdivertseightstormdrainsthat
operateyearroundduringdryweather.
2014:InimplementingstrategiestomeettheCSSA,theCityhasreduced
sewagespilloverflowsby82%.
2015:HealtheBaybeachreportcardsgives94%ofLosAngelesbeaches
an“A”or“B”gradeforsummerdryweatherwaterquality.
36
Low flow diversion projects implemented by the City of Los Angeles have resulted in much
improvedbeachwaterquality(AandBgrades,upfromDandFgrades).Beachwatermonitoring
datahasbeenshowingagenerallong-termdownwardtrendinbacteriacounts,whenshownin
correlationwiththetimelineofdiversioninstallation.
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
SeveralfactorswereimportantinthesuccessofLosAngeles’cleanupoftheSantaMonicaBay:
• ThankstoapartnershipbetweenlocalenvironmentalgroupsandtheCityofLos
Angeles,onNovember2,2004,anoverwhelmingmajority(76%)ofLosAngeles
residentspasseda$500millionwaterbondknownasPropositionOthatprovidedthe
resourcesformanyoftheBMPsusedtomeetbacteria,trashandotherTMDLs.
• Theuseofacomprehensivemonitoringplanthatshowedalargesourceofthebacteria
wascomingfromdryweatherdischargesfromthestormdrainagesystem.
• TheuseofthedryweatherdiversionasaninnovativeBMP.
• Throughsewercleaning,inspection,sourcecontrolandrenewal,theCityofLosAngeles
andLASanitationhaveinvestedover$3billiondollarsinsystemupgradesand
enhancements.
• LASanitationhasadoptedanaggressivefats,oils,andgreaseordinancegoverningall
14,000foodserviceestablishmentsintheCity.
MOTIVATING FACTORS
Regulatory:ConsentdecreerequiredconsistencywithbacteriaTMDLsand
MS4Permits,andmonitoringtoverifywaterqualityimprovements
Enforcement:$2billionsettlementreachedinEPA/SantaMonicaBaykeeper
LawsuitSettlementAgreementand$1.6millionincivilpenaltiesandfinesofup
to$15,000perdayfornon-compliance.
Funding: $150millionfromPropositionO
Local Partners: HealtheBayandLosAngelesWaterkeepernamedinthelawsuitwhichpromptedthe1999consentdecree.MultipleNGOsparticipatedinthe
developmentoftheLARiverbacteriaTMDL.
Unifying Issues: 50milesofrecreationalbeachesincloseproximitytourban
areaandresultantbeachclosuresduetobacteria.
37
SOURCES
Pruss, A. (1998) Review of Epidemiological Studies on Health Effects from Exposure to Recreational Water. International Journal of Epidemiology, 27, 1-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/
ije/27.1.1
Ackerman, Drew; Schiff, Kenneth; Trim, Heather; and Mullin, Mike (2003) “Characterization of
Water Quality in the Los Angeles River,” Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences: Vol. 102: Issue 1.
Heal the Bay’s 2014 – 2015 Beach Report Card.
CD:CDM. 2005. South Monica Bay Beaches Bacteria TMDL Implementation Plan for Jurisdictional Group 2 and 3.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2010. Los Angeles River Watershed Bacteria
Total Maximum Daily Load. July 15, 2010.
Traci Minamide, P.E., Shahram Kharaghani, P.E., Wing Tam, P.E., Steve Fan, P.E.,
Richard Haimann, P.E. 2011. “Urban Runoff Diversions for Water Quality Control – Their Benefit
to Beach Water Quality, and Their Impacts on Wastewater Treatments Works” Proceedings of
the Water Environment Federation 01/2011; 2011(8):6927-6934.
Rachel T. Noble, John F. Griffith, A., Denene Blackwood, Jed A. Fuhrman,
Jason B. Gregory, Ximena Hernandez, Xiaolin Liang, Angie A. Bera, and Kenneth Schiff. 2005.
Multitiered Approach Using Quantitative PCR To Track Sources of Fecal Pollution Affecting Santa
Monica Bay, California. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, Feb. 2006, p. 1604–1612.
http://www.justice.gov/archive/opa/pr/2004/August/04_enrd_542.htm
http://www.lastormwater.org/about-us/about-watersheds/santa-monica-bay/
http://www.epa.gov/region9/water/tmdl/progress.html#laConsent
http://www.lacitysan.org/wastewater/publications/pdfs/2011/Clean-Water-Program-Status-2011.pdf
http://www.lastormwater.org/green-la/proposition-o/
http://www.lastormwater.org/blog/2010/07/the-coast-is-clearer/
38
LOS ANGELES’S SUCCESS WITH REDUCING TRASH
PropositionOalsofundedseveraltrashcapturedevices.Besidesbacteria,trashis
amajorimpairingcontaminanttocoastalandinlandwaterways.Afterthetrash
TMDLwasapprovedinSeptember2001,theCityofLosAngelesconductedastudy
tocharacterizebaselinetrashgenerationratesincatchbasinsashigh,medium,or
lowtrashgeneratingareasoftheCity(CityofLosAngeles,2001).Thestudywas
usedtoassistwithstrategictargetingofbestmanagementpractices(BMPs).Two
oftheseBMPsincludedcatchbasininsertswith5millimeter(mm)openings,and
catchbasinopeningretractablescreencovers.TheCitystudiedtheeffectiveness
oftheseBMPsanddeterminedthatthe5mminsertswere100percenteffective
inpreventingthetrashgeneratedfromaone-year,one-hourstormeventfrom
enteringthestormdrain.Thecatchbasinopeningretractablescreencoverswere
foundtobe86%effective.
TomeettheTMDLimplementationschedule,fullcapturesystemswereinstalled
inthehightrashgeneratingareasoftheCity;andpartialcapturesystemswere
installedinthelowandmediumtrashgeneratingareasoftheCity.
TheCityhasinstalledtrashcaptureBMPsandhasachieved100%complianceone
yearaheadofschedule.
39
CASE STUDY:
LAKE PONTCHARTRAIN, NEW ORLEANS, LA
Lake Pontchartrain was removed from the Louisiana DEQ impaired waters list for primary contact recreation as of 2006
BACKGROUND
Lake Pontchartrain is just one part of a vast ecological
system called the Pontchartrain Basin. Known for its slowflowing rivers and bayous, tranquil swamps, and lush
hardwood forests, the Basin provides essential habitat for
countless species of fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, and
plants. The Basin comprises over 10,000 square miles of
land in 16 Louisiana parishes and 4 Mississippi counties.
All of these lands drain into rivers and bayous, which
empty into Lake Pontchartrain and its connecting sister
Lakes, Maurepas and Borgne. The Lake also exchanges
water with the Gulf of Mexico, making it one of the largest
estuarine systems in the nation. The Lake itself covers 630 square miles and is used for
boating, recreational fishing and swimming, with two
beaches providing access for swimmers: Pontchartrain
Beach on the South Shore and Fountainbleau State Park on
the North Shore. The South Shore of the Lake is bordered
by the City of New Orleans, while the North Shore is
comprised of suburban communities, forests, wetlands
and some farmland. Because the Mississippi River levees
are higher than the Lake levees, most rainwater collected
by the storm drainage system in New Orleans is pumped
into Lake Pontchartrain.
40
Source: http://coastal.er.usgs.gov/
pontchartrain/
http://kayakitiyat.com/big-easy-bayou-tour/
QUICK STATS
New Orleans
Lake Pontchartrain
Typeofwaterbody:
Estuarine
Annualrainfall:
63.5inches
Watershedarea:
10,000mi2
Population:
384,320
Averagedepth:
12-14ft
Sewersystem:
100%separate
Activeshippingchannels?
Yes
MS4status:
PhaseI
Watershedpopulation:
2.1million
Recreation:
1swimmingbeach,
8publicboatramps,
4kayak/canoerentals
41
SEWAGE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
Major sewage sources: small wastewater systems, SSOs
caused by infiltration and inflow
In 1972, the highly popular Pontchartrain Beach swimming area was closed due to high levels of
pollution from sewage, and then in 1979, “no swimming” advisories (which were often ignored)
were posted along the Lake’s South Shore by the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals. By
the 1980s, Lake Pontchartrain was literally a brown mess. At the end of the decade, the swimming
advisories included the entire South Shore and also covered the rivers on the North Shore. In the
spring of 1989, a report called “To Restore Lake Pontchartrain,” written by professors at Tulane
University and the University of New Orleans, identified sewage as one of four major sources of
pollution to the lake. By 1996, Lake Pontchartrain was included on the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality’s
(LDEQ’s) impaired waters list, with fecal coliform one of the causes of impairment. In 1998, after
several years of litigation, the Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans, City of New Orleans
and the State of Louisiana entered into a consent decree with EPA to address illegal discharges
of untreated sewage from the Sewerage and Water Board’s East Bank collection system into Lake
Pontchartrain. These discharges were primarily overflows from manholes on the streets of New
Orleans caused by blockages in the sewer line and from force main breaks and sewer pump
station failures. A major contributor to the overflows were the numerous leaks and cracks in the
City’s aging sewer system (up to 100 years old in some areas) which, when combined with the
City’s below sea level elevation and intense rainfall, caused rapid increases in wastewater flows
during and after storms that exceeded the system’s capacity. The consent decree involved $1.5 million in civil penalties and required the Sewerage and Water
Board to address these problems through the following compliance measures, primarily for the
East Bank collection system. These measures included:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Pump station backup plan in event of failure
Supervisory controls and data acquisition program
Plan for ensuring cross connections are fixed
Preventative maintenance program
Sewer overflow action plan
Tracking and reporting plan for unauthorized discharges
Remedial action plan to address capacity and condition of the system
Storm sewer monitoring program
Employee training
Outreach and public awareness
A $2 million Lincoln Beach Water Quality Improvement Plan
42
In2012,EPAfinalizedafecalcoliformTMDLfor15waterwaysintheLakePontchartrainBasin,
includingnumerousdrainagecanalsandleveedwaterwaysthatareimpairedasaresultofSSOs
andstormwaterrunoffinOrleansandJeffersonParishes.Modificationstotheconsentdecree
in 2013 required the Sewerage and Water Board to coordinate with EPA and LDEQ to ensure
thattheremediationworkisconsistentwiththeTMDLrequirementsaswellasthemunicipal
separatestormsewersystem(MS4)Permit,forwhichtheBoardisaco-permitteewiththeCity
ofNewOrleans,PortofNewOrleans,OrleansLeveeDistrict,JeffersonParish,andtheLouisiana
DepartmentofTransportation.
On the North Shore of Lake Pontchartrain, rapid growth and development led to its sewage
pollutionproblems.Datacollectedintheearly1990sintheTchefuncteRiverandBogueFalaya
showthatthebacteriacountsweregreaterthan10,000MPN/100ml,causingtheriverstobe
placed underswimming advisories and ultimatelylistedon Louisiana’s listof impairedwaters
forfecalcoliformbacteriain1992.SewagesourcesontheNorthShoreincludedischargesfrom
overburdened wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) or poorly maintained and improperly
operatinghomesepticandmechanicaltreatmentsystems.Withmanyofthesesmallsystems,
gapsinthepermitti
ngsystemresultedinowners/operatorshavinginadequateinformationabout
howtoproperlyoperateormaintaintheirsystems.OneotherdirectsourceofsewagetotheLake
wasaseriesofoldcampswithnowastetreatmentsystems.
KEY PLAYERS
EPA Region 6:ResponsibleforCleanWaterActenforcementinLouisiana,including
theSSOconsentdecreeandbacteriaTMDLs.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality:ThisStateagencycollects
waterqualitydatatodeterminestatusofwaterimpairmentsandisadefendantin
theSSOconsentdecree
Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans: Formedin1899,thisutility
operatestheCityofNewOrleans’drainage,waterandsewerprogramsandisthe
primarydefendantintheSSOconsentdecree
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation:Inthespringof1989,areportcalled
“ToRestoreLakePontchartrain,”writtenbyprofessorsatTulaneUniversityandthe
UniversityofNewOrleans,calledfortheestablishmentofanentitywhosesole
focuswouldbeahealthyLakeandBasin.Thatreportbecametherallyingpointfor
acitizen-ledeffortthatresultedintheformationoftheLakePontchartrainBasin
Foundationthatsameyear.Thisnon-profitorganizationconductsmonitoring,
educationandrestorationactivitiesandareprimarilyfundedbyEPAandLDEQ.
43
SEWAGE POLLUTION SOLUTIONS
In 1995, a comprehensive management plan was finalized for the Basin by the Lake Pontchartrain
Basin Foundation (LPBF), a non-profit organization focused on restoring the health of the Lake, in
concert with EPA. The plan laid out a roadmap for addressing the major pollution sources, including:
1. Maintenance and education for the owners/operators of small community/business WWTPs and individual home WWTPs;
2. Septic disposal facility construction;
3. Fund parish planning and construction of larger community/regional sewerage systems and better maintenance of existing systems; and
4. Funding for stormwater system investigations and repairs
In 1996, the Sewerage and Water Board began a major rehabilitation and capacity upgrade
of its aging sewage collection system, following a public hearing to obtain citizen input on the
plan. The Sewer System Evaluation and Rehabilitation Program was eventually incorporated
into the consent decree. To date, sanitary sewer evaluation surveys to identify structural sewer
rehabilitation needs are complete for the entire East Bank collection system. Implementation
of the remediation projects—including trenchless pipe lining and manhole rehabilitation—have
been completed for half of the collection system, with an expected final completion date of 2025. The consent decree also required quarterly storm event monitoring for indictors of sewage (fecal
coliform, fecal strep, enterococci and caffeine) before and after remediation projects to verify
their effect on water quality. The LPBF wanted to do more frequent monitoring and be able to
communicate to the public that the Lake’s water quality was improving. In 2000, they began
sampling for fecal coliform (as per State water quality standards) at ten historically recreational
sites on a weekly basis and another ten sites of interest on a monthly basis.
As a result of this monitoring, it soon became apparent that the Tchefuncte River and its tributary
the Bogue Falaya, were contributing significant bacteria loads to the Lake. So LPBF and St. Tammany
Parish began more investigative monitoring in 2002 to identify and correct pollution sources,
which turned out to be primarily leaking or inadequately maintained small wastewater systems.
LPBF has focused this monitoring—referred to as the Pollution Source Tracking Program—on
the Tchefuncte River system and works with a wastewater contractor to assist operators (e.g.,
homeowners, municipalities, businesses) with making the needed repairs or corrections once the
bacteria hotspots are pinpointed. Given the findings of the Pollution Source Tracking Program, LPBF partnered with LDEQ’s Small
Business Assistance Program to document how to operate and maintain small package waste
treatment systems and to provide free assistance for the owners/operators. The focused effort
included direct contact and one-on-one educational outreach with area residents, small-business
operators and community groups. St. Tammany Parish entered into a cooperative agreement
44
with LDEQ to inspect septic systems and implement a parish-wide educational program on septic
system maintenance and repair using Clean Water Act Section 319 funds. The parish took further
action, passing an ordinance requiring that on-site sewage disposal systems be inspected before a
residential certificate of occupancy could be awarded and electrical power connections activated.
Old Beach, one of LPBF’s weekly monitoring sites in New Orleans (Source: www.saveourlake.org)
In 2005, Hurricane Katrina hit southeast Louisiana, setting back progress on water quality
improvements in the Basin, including the consent decree. As a result, most consent decree
objectives were put on hold for two years while damages to the wastewater system were repaired.
Modifications to the consent decree were approved in 2010, 2013, and 2014 that extended the
deadlines for remediation due to continuing effects from Katrina. Until Katrina hit, the Board had
been in compliance with all aspects of the consent decree, and with the 2014 modifications, is on
track to complete the required activities by 2025.
After Hurricane Katrina, there was a galvanizing of the regulatory community. Says Andrea
Bourgeois-Calvin, PhD, Water Quality Program Director of the LPBF, “the silver lining of Katrina
was that everyone realized we all need to work together and there was greater education of the
public.” One example of this heightened awareness is that the old camps on the Lake, which had
been wiped out during Katrina, were not allowed to rebuild.
45
The efforts to address sewage on the North Shore were largely funded through EPA grants and
parish funds, while the South Shore improvements were financed through multiple sources
including a $100 million grant from EPA (over 10 years) and service rate increases (two service
rate increases between 1998 and 2002, followed by an annual 10% increase from 2013 through
2020). A 2014 estimate shows that the Sewerage and Water Board has spent $220 million on
evaluating and rehabbing the sewer system, with plans to spend another $170M. That price does
not include the costs of the Katrina-related work in those four basins, a sewage overflow tracking
and reporting program, flood protection upgrades, or legal fees for the negotiations. The Board
plans to spend another $87.7 million in 2015 for sewerage system upgrades, including $33 million
for replacing sewer lines.
PROGRESS TO DATE
Water clarity in Lake Pontchartrain began improving in the mid-1990s. Pelicans began returning
in the late 1990s, while blue crab harvest increased. By 2000, Lake Pontchartrain appeared
suitable for swimming again. In 2005, over 20 manatees were sighted in the Lake. The testing
that LPBF conducts through its water quality-monitoring program has shown that water quality
has improved significantly on the Lake’s South Shore. In 2006, despite the major setbacks brought
on by Hurricane Katrina, Lake Pontchartrain was removed from the LDEQ impaired waters list for
primary contact recreation (except for a sliver along the South Shore which is still under review). Today, South Shore water quality is almost always suitable for swimming, based on the State of
Louisiana’s water quality standards for primary contact recreation of fecal coliform levels below
200 MPN (most probable number of colonies of bacteria per 100ml). In 2009, the inaugural
Ochsner Ironman Triathlon included a 1.2 mile swim in the Lake. While Pontchartrain Beach was
closed for swimming in 2012 due to safety concerns, LPBF is working towards a renovated, safe
and supervised public beach and swimming area in the near future as funding becomes available.
These results demonstrate that improvements to the City of New Orleans’ sewerage system have
had a tremendous impact on cleaning up Lake Pontchartrain. On the North Shore, bacteria counts in the rivers have declined significantly and now meet
standards for primary contact recreation limits. As a result, LDEQ removed the Tangipahoa, Bogue
Falaya and the Tchefuncte rivers from the 2008 CWA section 303(d) list of impaired waters for
fecal coliform. The Pollution Source Tracking program and resulting wastewater improvements
are to credit for this water quality success story.
46
TIMELINE
1972:PontchartrainBeachclosedduetopollution
1979:NoSwimmingadvisoriespostedalongSouthShore
1989:LakePontchartrainBasinFoundationestablished
1995:ComprehensiveManagementPlanfinalizedfortheBasin;North
Shoreriversincludedonimpairedwaterslistforbacteria
1996:LakePontchartrainincludedonimpairedwaterslistforbacteria;
SewerageandWaterBoardofNewOrleansbegansewerupgrades
1998:ConsentdecreetoaddressSSOsbetweenEPAandSewerageand
WaterBoardofNewOrleans,LouisianaDEQandCityof
NewOrleans
2000:LakePontchartrainBasinFoundationbeganfecalcoliformsampling
2002:LakePontchartrainBasinFoundationbeganPollutionSource
Trackingprogram
2005:HurricaneKatrinahits
2006:LakePontchartrainremovedfromimpairedwaterslist
2008:NorthShoreriversremovedfromimpairedwaterslist
2010:Firstmodificationofconsentdecree
2012:FecalcoliformTMDLestablishedfordrainagecanalsandleveed
waterbodiesintheNewOrleansareadrainingtoLakePontchartrain
2013and2014:Secondandthirdconsentdecreemodifications
2025:Expectedcompletiondateforconsentdecreeprojects
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
InNewOrleans,theconsentdecreewastheinitialdrivertofixthesewersystem,buttheCity’s
MS4permitandTMDLssoonalsobecameimportant.Inthe2013modificationoftheconsent
decree,thefollowinglanguagewasaddedtohelpensurethattheremediationmeasureswould
betiedtolocalwaterquality:
47
“The Board commits to consult with EPA and LDEQ to ensure, to the maximum extent possible,
that the RMAP work is consistent with the requirements of the Total Maximum Daily Loads
(TMDLs) for Fecal Coliform Bacteria and Dissolved Oxygen for Selected Subsegments in the Lake
Pontchartrain Basin and the Board’s MS4 (Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System) discharge
permit. The Board will include a summary and description of any such discussions in its Quarterly
and Annual Reports.”
Another unique element of the consent decree that likely contributed to the City’s success is
therequirementtoestablishastormsewermonitoringprogram.Theintentofthemonitoring
is to provide baseline data on the presence of sewage indicating pollutants in the East Bank
stormwaterdrainagesystempriortoandfollowingcompletionoftheremediationprojects,to
ensuretheprojectsresultintheintendedimprovements.Largefinesofupto$15,000perday
mayalsohavebeenamotivatorfortheBoardtocompletetheconsentdecreeprojectsontime.
LPBFattributesitssuccessinhelpingtocleanupLakePontchartraintothefactthatitsmission
is focused on water quality improvements and this mission drives all of their activities. The
organizationisprimarilysupportedbyfundsfromEPAandLDEQandtheiruniquefocusonthe
Lake supersedes jurisdictional boundaries. Throughout the basin and region, the impact of
Hurricane Katrina also spurred unprecedented cooperation among the jurisdictions and other
entitiestoworktowardsacommongoalofrestoringtheLake.
MOTIVATING FACTORS
Regulatory:ConsentdecreerequiredconsistencywithbacteriaTMDLsand
MS4Permits,andrequiredmonitoringtoverifywaterqualityimprovements.
Enforcement:Consentdecreeinvolved$1.5millionincivilpenalties,andfines
ofupto$15,000perdayfornon-compliance.
Funding:$100millionfromEPA,followedby10%annualsewerrateincrease
overeightyears.
Local Partners:Publicoutcryinthe1980sledtotheformationoftheLake
PontchartrainBasinFoundationwithitsmissionto“SavetheLake.”The
organizationisfundedbyfederalandStateagencies,wasaplaintiff-intervenerin
theoriginallawsuitagainsttheWaterandSewerageBoardofNewOrleans,and
nowworkscooperativelywithlocalagenciestofindandfixpollutionsources.
Unifying Issues: AfterHurricaneKatrinahitNewOrleansin2005,therewas
unprecedentedcooperationamongpartnersintheregion.
48
SOURCES
Sub-Basin Pollution Source Tracking Program:
http://water.epa.gov/polwaste/nps/success319/la_tchef.cfm
Sewerage and Water Board of New Orleans Consent Decree website:
http://www.swbno.org/docs_consentdecree.asp
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation: http://saveourlake.org/
Ochsner Ironman New Orleans Triathlon:
http://www.the2040project.com/2010/09/lake-pontchartrain-water-quality-is-it.html
DEQ Swimming Advisories: http://www.deq.louisiana.gov/portal/Portals/0/assistance/Swimming%20Advisory%20Table.pdf
Louisiana Water Quality Assessment Report:
http://ofmpub.epa.gov/waters10/attains_state.control?p_state=LA
Personal communication with Andrea Bourgeois-Calvin, PhD, Water Quality Program Director,
LPBF
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/02/new_orleans_deadline_for_feder.html
http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/new_orleans_water_board_unveil.html
http://www.bestofneworleans.com/gambit/jumping-in-lake-pontchartrain/
Content?oid=1253853
http://www.usclimatedata.com/
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/22/2255000.html
http://www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/8590f983-45d9-4b95-a7c3-bf2b5356f100/
dufrechou-testimony.pdf
49
CASE STUDY:
LAFAYETTE RIVER, NORFOLK, VA
In 2014, the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
issued a draft report that the Lafayette River meets water
quality standards for recreational contact
BACKGROUND
TheLafayetteRiverisa6.2-mile-longtidalestuarythatformsthenorthernmostbranchofthe
ElizabethRiver,thelargestnaturalharborintheworld.TheElizabethRiverinturnemptiesinto
thesouthernendoftheChesapeakeBayinsoutheastVirginia.TheLafayetteRiverwatershed,
which covers 13.87 square miles of mostly residential land, is entirely located in the city of
Norfolk,Virginia.
Marshandfarmlandwerethepredominantlandcoversuntilthefirststreetcarcrossedthe26th
StreetBridgein1899.Decadesofdischargesfromfactoriesandshipyardsresultedinalegacyof
contaminationintheriverbottom.Today,thisriverpromisestobecomethefirstbranchofthe
ElizabethRivertoreturntohealth.TheRiverisusedforrecreation,especiallyboating,tubing,
andwater-skiing.Therearenopublicaccesspointsforswimming.
QUICK STATS
Lafayette River
City of Norfolk
Typeofwaterbody:
Estuarine
Annualrainfall:
46.5inches
Watershedarea:
13.87mi2
Population:
245,428
Watershedpopulation:
98,000
Sewersystem:
100%separate
MS4status:
PhaseI
Recreation:
8publicboatramps/kayak
launchsites,1community
pier,2kayak/jetskirentals
50
Figure 1. The Lafayette River watershed
(Source: http://cbf.typepad.com/bay_daily/2011/04/things-looking-up-for-the-lafayette.html)
Major sewage sources: wet weather SSOs from I&I; dry
weather SSOs from grease-related clogs
SEWAGE POLLUTION PROBLEMS
For most of the 20th century, the Elizabeth River was routinely labeled the “dirtiest” on the
East coast. The River and its tributaries were plagued by problems from industry, including
contaminated bottom sediments and cancer-causing toxics. In the 1920s, the harvest of clams
and oysters from the Elizabeth River was banned due to bacteria and other contamination. The
oyster ban brought attention to the issue of sewage pollution, leading to the establishment of
Hampton Roads Sanitation District (HRSD) in 1940. Then in 1991, the Elizabeth River Project (ERP)
was founded by four citizens with a goal of restoring the health of the river and the local economy,
further raising awareness about water quality concerns in the region.
In 2001, the Virginia State Water Control Board issued a special order of consent with the HRSD
and the City of Norfolk to resolve Clean Water Act violations from sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs)
to the Elizabeth River and its tributaries. These SSOs were caused by infiltration and inflow of
groundwater into the system through leaks and cracks in old pipes, which then overloaded the
capacity of the system when it rained. Dry weather SSOs were also occurring, primarily caused
by clogs from grease poured down the drain. Because HRSD and the City of Norfolk each own
and maintain a portion of the sewer lines in the City of Norfolk and the waste is then treated
by HRSD, the two entities worked cooperatively to eliminate SSOs in the City. In 2005, after the
sanitary sewer evaluation survey (SSES) required by the special order of consent was complete,
the Board entered into a new agreement with HRSD and City of Norfolk to establish a schedule
for completion of the recommended sewer remediation projects. The City of Norfolk is also
51
voluntarilyworkingwiththeHRSDmunicipalitiesonthedevelopmentofaregionalwetweather
managementplanrequiredbyafederalconsentorderwithEPA.
The upper reaches of the Lafayette River were first included on the Virginia Department of
EnvironmentalQuality’simpairedwaterslistin2002forbacteria(enterococcus).Thesourceof
theimpairmentwaslistedasunknownbuttheRiverwasalsolistedasimpairedforestuarine
bioassessment,PCBs,anddissolvedoxygen,withsourcesthatincludedmunicipalsewageand
SSOs.Abacteriatotalmaximumdailyload(TMDL)wasapprovedin2010fortheElizabethRiver
watershed.TheTMDLidentifiedpetwasteandSSOsastheprimarysourcesofbacteriatothe
Lafayette.Duringtheperiod2005-2009,therewere49reportedSSOsintheLafayettewatershed
alone that discharged to surface waters. Stormwater runoff, failing septic systems, wildlife,
livestock, and marinas were identified in the TMDL as less significant bacteria sources. The
LafayetteRiverbacteriaTMDLrequiresa100%reductionfromSSOsandfailingsepticsystems,
anda98%reductioninbacterialoadfrompetwasteandlivestock.
KEY PLAYERS
Virginia State Water Control Board:Responsibleforadministrating
theVirginiaWaterControlLaw,includingissuanceofspecialorderstoresolve
violationsofitsregulationsandpermits
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality:ThisStateagency
handlesday-to-dayadministrationofVirginia’swaterlaws,includingimpaired
waters,TMDLsandMS4permits
City of Norfolk, Virginia: TheCityofNorfolkwasissuedaspecialorderof
consentbytheStateWaterControlBoardforSSOsandasaresulthasspent
millionsfixingleaksandcracksinitscollectionsystem
Hampton Roads Sanitation District:Formedin1940toprotectpublic
healthandthewatersofHamptonRoadsbytreatingwastewatereffectively,
HRSDisalsonamedinthespecialorderofconsentwiththeCityofNorfolkandis
addressingSSOsbyincreasingthecapacityoftheirtreatmentsystems
Elizabeth River Project: Foundedin1991byfourcitizenswithagoalof
restoringthehealthoftheriverandthelocaleconomy,ERPworksonrestoration
andeducationandconductsmonitoringthroughoutthewatershed.
52
SEWAGE POLLUTION SOLUTIONS
The 2001 special order of consent comprehensively
addressed sanitary sewer overflows by requiring
development of collection system plans, an
expenditure of $13.5 million on capital improvements
and system operation, and completion of the SSES
and a sewer line inspection program in the City of
Norfolk. The 2005 agreement set forth a schedule
for rehabilitation and required the City of Norfolk to
spend $46 million on repairs. Since 2002, Norfolk
has spent $76 million in sanitary sewer improvement
projects in the Lafayette River watershed. The SSES
has allowed the City to prioritize neighborhoods that
are in the worst shape and are close to the River.
To prevent stormwater from overwhelming sewer
lines, Norfolk is phasing in the upgrade of all 17,000
manholes to add steel inserts that keep stormwater
out. The City is replacing leaking sewer pipes and is
part of a regional effort to address leaking lines on
private property. These remediation projects were
funded by a sewer rate increase of 30% in 2004, 14%
in 2005, and an annual 4% hike after 2005. All of these efforts have reduced the number of SSOs
in the City from 200/year to about 15/year.
To address the dry weather SSOs caused by grease clogs, the City developed its fats, oils and
grease (FOG) program as part of a regional effort with HRSD. This included developing standards,
investigating each food service establishment in the City and providing educational materials to
facility owners. This effort has helped to reduce main line stoppages in the City and, now that the
program has been established, the City is working on inspections and enforcement.
In 2009, the ERP began organizing community-wide efforts to improve the Lafayette that involved
everyone from residents, businesses, volunteers and scientists as well as the HRSD and City of
Norfolk. ERP introduced a Lafayette River Action Plan in 2011 with a key goal to remove the
Lafayette from the state’s impaired list for bacteria by 2014. The 2011 plan was developed with
the Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) with input from 100 stakeholders from all walks of life.
Another goal of the plan was to meet Virginia Department of Health Shellfish Sanitation’s bacteria
limits for consumption of shellfish.
53
SomeaccomplishmentsresultingfromtheLafayetteRiverActionPlaninclude:
• Testingforbacteriain15sitesintheLafayette(expandedfromprevioussampling)
• InstallationofpetwastestationsbyERP
• ERPenlistedhalfoftheLafayetteRivermarinasasVirginiaCleanMarinasandRiverStar
businesseswhichinvolvedupgradestooneofthemarinapumpoutstations
• HRSDexpandeditsfreeboaterpumpoutprogramtovisitallNorfolkmarinasevery
weekendinthesummerandeverySaturdayinwinter
• ImplementationofbankstabilizationandfloatingwetlandprojectatVirginiaZoo
• Installationof300stormdrainmarkersbyCBF
• 15acresofwetlandrestorationbyCityofNorfolk,andfundingacquiredforrestoration
ofanadditionalsevenacres
• 9.5acresofnewoysterreef,plusfundingfortwoadditionalacres
• Morethan800“oysterreefballs”
• 13millionyoungoystersgrownfortheLafayettebyCBF
• 1,200RiverStarhomescertifiedintheLafayette
• Implementationofgreenstormwaterprojects(e.g.,wetlands,Filterra,raingardens)by
theCityofNorfolktomeettheirnutrientTMDLbutthatalsoremovebacteriaand
provideamenitiesforthecommunityaswellashabitat
TIMELINE
1920s:BaninstitutedonharvestingoystersandclamsintheElizabeth
Riverduetobacterialcontamination
1940: EstablishmentoftheHamptonRoadsSanitationDistrict
1991: ElizabethRiverProjectfounded
2001: SpecialorderofconsentbetweenVirginiaStateWaterControl
BoardandCityofNorfolkforSSOs
2002: LafayetteRiverincludedonStateimpairedwaterslist
2004: Sewerrateincreaseof30%approvedtopayfor
rehabilitationprojects
2005: RevisedspecialorderofconsentbetweenVirginiaStateWater
ControlBoardandCityofNorfolkandHRSDforSSOs
2010: BacteriaTMDLdevelopedfortheElizabethRiverwatershed
2011: LafayetteRiverActionPlandeveloped
2012: SeahorsespottedintheLafayetteRiver
54
TIMELINE - CONTINUED
2012: SeahorsespottedintheLafayetteRiver
2014: LafayetteRiverReportCardgivestheRivera“B”forbacteria;
VirginiaDEQdraftreportrecommendsremovingtheLafayette
fromtheimpairedwaterslist
2018: Projectedenddateforcompletionofconsentorderprojects
2022: Longtermimprovementsinbacteriatrendstobeevaluatedfor
theLafayette
ERP’sbacteriatestinghasledtosourcetrackingeffortsthatresultedinsuccessfulelimination
ofsewagedischargesandalsospurredaregionalefforttoapplybacteriasourcetracking(BST)
technologytoisolatehumansewagesources.WhentheERP’ssamplingdatashowedconsistently
high bacteria levels at one site in the upper reaches of the Lafayette, the City of Norfolk did
additional bacteria testing upstream in the stormwater system to narrow down the source of
theproblem.HRSDthenalsocollectedsamples,whichwereanalyzedusingBSTtodetermine
if the source of the bacteria at each site was human or non-human. Using this method, the
partnersultimatelyfoundapumpstationwithacrackedforcemainandtheCitywasabletofix
theproblem.BasedonthesuccessofapplyingBSTtosourcetracking,HRSDhassinceestablished
a state-of-the-art lab for BST and this year the Commission approved five new positions that
willfocusjustonsourcetrackingtoreducepathogens.HRSDisnotrequiredtoundertakethese
activitiesbutweredrivenbytheirmissionto“protectpublichealthandthewatersofHampton
Roads”tovoluntarilyworktoeliminaterawsewage.
PROGRESS TO DATE
TheintensivefocusonrestorationoftheLafayettewatershedhasresultedinsignificantreduction
inbacterialevelsintheRiver.TheElizabethRiverStateoftheRiverSteeringCommittee’s2014
Water Quality Scorecard for the Lafayette gives the River a “B” for bacteria, as measured by
enterococcus levels compared to State criteria for recreational human contact. Virginia DEQ
measuresbacteriaintheLafayetteonceamonthattwostations.Thestatereviewssixyearsof
datatorecommendwhethertoremoveariverfromalistofwaterwaysimpairedforrecreational
contact.Duringthesesixyears,nomorethan10%ofthetotalsamplescanexceed104colony
formingunits(CFU)per100ml.ofenterococcibacteria.DEQ’s2014draftWaterQualityAssessment
IntegratedReport,whichsummarizestheresultsofthismonitoring,saystheLafayettebranch
hasachievedthestatestandardforbacteria.Aswithanyurbanriver,meetingstatestandards
doesnotmeanawaterbodyisalwayssafeforswimming.Elevatedbacterialevelsarestillhighly
55
likely for up to 72 hours after a rain. The State
Health Department determines which waters
are “safe” for swimming through weekly
testing but does not test in the Lafayette
because there are no public swimming areas.
The reduction of sewage flows to the
Lafayette River has not only affected bacteria
levels, but also has improved shellfish quality
and water quality overall. The 2014 Water
Quality Scorecard indicates that more than
50% of the Lafayette may now meet state
bacteria levels for shellfish consumption.
Figure 2. A seahorse found in the Lafayette has spurred
The Virginia Division of Shellfish Sanitation
more searching by scientists (Source: CBF)
is evaluating whether to lessen the ban from
prohibited to restricted, in consideration of
other factors such as viruses and PCBs. The
2014 Water Quality Scorecard gives the Lafayette an “A” for dissolved oxygen, the highest of
any branch on the Elizabeth River. ERP staff Joe Reiger and Marjorie Mayfield Jackson, both of
whom live on the River, have observed an increase in recreational use of the River over the years,
mostly by kayakers, canoes, etc. One of the more inspiring indicators of success was the discovery
of a lined seahorse by scientists during an aquatic survey in the Lafayette in 2012. Seahorses
prefer clean water and its sighting may be a harbinger of the river coming back to life. Long-term
improvements in bacteria trends in the Lafayette will be evaluated in 2022, when scientists will
have ten years of data.
KEY FACTORS IN SUCCESS
The relatively small size of the Lafayette River watershed provided an ideal laboratory to study
the effects of intensive restoration and facilitated the ability to measure improvements soon after
projects are implemented. The location of the watershed within a single municipality and the
consent order requirements to spend a specific and very large amount of money on restoration
may also have been factors contributing to success. The partnership between ERP, the City and HRSD was cited by all three partners as extremely
important because each partner did their part and had a singular focus on restoration. While the
City and HRSD worked to improve their assets along the River, ERP acted as another set of eyes
to look for problems. Rather than point fingers or threaten to sue, ERP met with the partners
and asked for help. In return, the HRSD and City of Norfolk provided assistance with tracking
down sources of sewage even when it was not required. The HRSD has gone above and beyond
the requirements of the consent orders—for example, establishing the source tracking program
and adopting state-of-the-art methods—simply because of their commitment to their mission of
keeping sewage out of the water.
56
MOTIVATING FACTORS
Regulatory:SpecialorderofconsentforSSOsandbacteriaTMDLwereregulatorydrivers.
Funding: consentorderrequiredtheCityofNorfolktoallocatemorethan$59
million for rehabilitation; projects were funded by sewer rates hikes of 30% in
2004,14%in2005andanannualincreaseof4%after2005.
Local Partners: TheElizabethRiverProjectplaysanimportantroleinhelpingto
identifyproblemsandbringthemtotheattentionoftheCity,aswellastoengage
thepublicindoingtheirparttorestoretheRiver.
Champions: HRSD has gone above and beyond their requirements by establishingapollutionsourcetrackingprogramusingstate-of-the-artbacteriasource
trackingtechniques,whiletheCityofNorfolk’sDirectorofUtilitiesKristenLentz
hasbeenknowntoputonherbootsandwalkaroundtheshorelineafterwork
hourssearchingforsewageleaks.
SOURCES
http://www.cbf.org/document.doc?id=660
http://www.hrpdcva.gov/departments/water-resources/special-order-by-consent-for-sanitarysewer-overflows
http://www.hrpdcva.gov/uploads/docs/Regionalization%20of%20Sewer%20Systems%20Assets%20Study%20-%20Final%20Report.pdf
http://www.hrsd.com/pdf/EPA/Presentations/RWWMP%20Annual%20Public%20Meeting%20
-%20Presentation%2020140128.pdf
http://hamptonroads.com/2012/09/seahorse-inspires-more-searching-lafayette-river
Personalcommunication,JoeReigerandMarjorieMayfieldJackson,ElizabethRiverProject
Personalcommunication,TedHenifin,GeneralManager,HRSD
Personalcommunication,EricTucker,AssistantDirectorofUtilities,CityofNorfolk
57